Thank You

Thanks to our elected 'leaders,' who are charged with the responsibility of protecting us. As the following article shows, they have failed miserably.

The attack in Nice shouldn’t have been a surprise

If Thursday’s terrorist attack in Nice, France, was shocking, it shouldn’t be — because we were warned.

The attack seems to have been ripped out of the al-Qaeda playbook.

In 2010, two American terrorists,Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, published a series of articles in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire on what they called “Open Source Jihad.” They described it as “a resource manual” for carrying out terrorist attacks against the West that allowed Islamic radicals “to train at home instead of risking dangerous travel abroad.” All that is needed, they said, “is the willingness to give one’s life for Allah.”

One of those articles, published in the fall 2010 issue under the name of a terrorist trainer identified as Yahya Ibrahim, was called “The Ultimate Mowing Machine.” It described what ultimately happened in Nice in precise detail.

“Here is one idea of how an individual Muslim may [wage individual jihad]. It is a simple idea and there is not much involved in its preparation,” the article said. “The idea is to use a pickup truck as a mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah.”

“Pick your location and timing carefully,” it continued. “Go for the most [crowded] locations. Narrower spots are also better because it gives less chance for the people to run away. . . . To achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control of your vehicle in order to . . . be able to strike as many people as possible in your first run. Keep in mind that as soon as people realize what you are up to, they would scatter and run in every direction looking for cover. They would look for areas where the vehicle cannot reach them. Therefore, it is important to study your path of operation beforehand.”

The article further advised that “The ideal location is a place where there are a maximum number of pedestrians and the least number of vehicles. In fact if you can get through to ‘pedestrian only’ locations that exist in some downtown (city center) areas, that would be fabulous. There are some places that are closed down for vehicles at certain times due to the swarms of people.”

“If you have access to firearms, carry them with you so that you may use them to finish off your work if your vehicle gets grounded during the attack,” it concluded, adding “This idea could be implemented in countries like Israel, the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, [and] France.”

This is what happened last night. The driver, identified as 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, took a truck, found a crowded location in the city center reserved for pedestrians, where thousands were gathered for a fireworks display. He picked up as much speed as possible and drove for more than a mile down the promenade, mowing people down. The driver then got out and started shooting people, before he was shot by police. At least 84 people were killed and dozens more injured.

So how do we stop them? The answer is not gun control. France has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, yet that did not stop Bouhlel in Nice from obtaining the weapons he used. And most of those killed in France were not shot; they were run over. The terrorists have plenty of ideas for how to kill us that don’t involve guns.

The answer is to take away their caliphate — to win the fight over there, so we do not have to face them over here. When the Islamic State was “decimated” after the 2007 surge in Iraq, its members were not carrying out terrorist attacks across the world. They had, according to CIA Director John Brennan, only about “700 or so” adherents left. They were focused on survival, not external operations. Their current campaign of violence only started after President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq, took our boot off their necks and allowed them to establish a haven in Syria — which they then turned into a Grand Central Terminal of jihad, bringing in tens of thousands of foreign fighters from more than 100 countries across the world. They then used their Syrian haven as a base from which to reconquer large swaths of Iraq, declare their radical Islamic caliphate and spread their deadly tentacles across the globe. And we think it is a coincidence that since then, they have carried out 126 attacks in 23 countries outside of Iraq and Syria that have killed more than 1,700 people. (emphasis added)

Thank you, barack hussein obama.

When will the carnage stop? When the terrorists are defeated again. Until then, expect more attacks like the one in Nice.

Step Number One - don't let these savages into our country, as Newt Gingrich has suggested.

Step Number Two - cut off their financial means of support, along with their access to social media. You can't tell me that (1) we are unable to 'follow the dollars;' and (2) we are unable to hack into or otherwise disrupt the host servers of their websites. Hell, just about any 18-year-old could do either. Why haven't we?

Step Number Three - stop releasing captured terrorists from Gitmo.

Step Number Four - track 'em down and kill 'em all.

There - that's not so hard, is it?

A Chip Off The Old Block

My 22-year-old son sent me this joke.

Four surgeons sit around discussing their favorite patients.

The first surgeon says, "I like operating on librarians. When you open them up, everything is in alphabetical order".

The second surgeon says, "I like operating on accountants. When you open them up, everything is in numerical order".

The third surgeon says, "I like operating on electricians. When you open them up, everything is color coded".

The fourth surgeon says, "I like operating on politicians".

The other three surgeons look at each other in disbelief.

The fourth surgeon continues, "Because they're heartless, gutless, spineless, and the ass and head are interchangeable".

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Speaking of heartless, gutless, spineless, and ass-headed politicians:

Dress Code

I'm still busier than a one-armed paper hanger in an ass-kicking contest (or whatever that saying is), but I did want to vent about a couple of things in the recently released House Select Committee on Benghazi report. There's plenty in there to get upset about, especially since the end result of all the bungling, incompetence, and CYA crap was four dead Americans. But what really caught my eye were two things.

First, there appears to have been a tug of war between State and Defense over how the 'rescue forces' should dress.

The report highlights the military's failure to carry out Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's order to deploy forces to Benghazi and the lengthy delay that prevented the military assets from arriving at the embassy in Tripoli until 2 p.m. the day after the Benghazi attack. 

"What was disturbing from the evidence the Committee found was that at the time of the final lethal attack at the Annex, no asset ordered deployed by the Secretary had even left the ground," the report states. 

Previous accounts blamed the "tyranny of time and distance" plus the failure to have airplanes ready for the significant delay in moving military assets. But the report states conflicting orders from State Department and Pentagon officials over whether Marines should wear military uniforms or civilian attire also played a role. (emphasis added)

In a newly revealed two-hour secure video conference on the night of the attacks led by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and attended by Clinton and others, State Department officials raised concerns about the diplomatic sensitivities of the attire to be worn by assets launched.

Really? People are dying and the Foggy Bottom boys (and girls) are worried "diplomatic sensitivities"? Let's put them in a position where they're getting shot at and see if they care what the rescue team is wearing.

According to one commander, the report states, as forces prepared to deploy, "during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times." (emphasis added)

GMAFB.

Another thing which raised my hackles was this tidbit.

The report also finds that then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James Winnefeld, did not participate in the secure call because "he had left to return to his residence to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries." He received one update during the dinner on the attacks.

If true, and if there isn't a damn good reason behind his failure to participate, then his military career needs to come to a schreeching halt. I wasn't there, I don't know all the details, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it just sounds wrong.

Of course, barry and hillary screwed the pooch seven ways from Sunday on this one, but it sure looks like there's plenty of other blame to go around. Regardless of how much ineptness is at the top of the food chain, people need to figure out some way to do their job - or find another one.

I'm so disgusted by everyone involved I need to stop typing now before I blow a gasket...

Under The Radar

Most of yesterday's news was focused on the Brexit vote - Britain's decision to leave the European Union.

The stunning vote, 52 percent to 48 percent, plunged world financial markets into turmoil, the political consequences for the prime minister of Britain were swift, and the people around the globe reacted with shock and confusion.

FWIW, I heartily applaud the outcome. Anytime a populace can shed one layer of corrupt and inept politicians, along with the accompanying regulatory and bureaucratic overkill, indifference, and incompetence, well, that's a good thing.

It also shows that the 'silent majority' is alive and well, and is 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.' That may have implications for our own election come November.

But while Brexit hogged most of the headlines and airtime, several other noteworthy stories snuck under the radar. Just in case you missed them:

Senate gun compromise survives first test vote

The Senate voted Thursday to allow further consideration of bipartisan legislation banning gun sales to people on the terrorism "no-fly" list.

Senate Republicans could have killed the measure, but several sided with Democrats in allowing it to go forward.

No doubt the crybabies and spoiled brats who participated in the House sit-in protesting lack of action are pleased.

The premise - that someone who is considered too dangerous to board a commercial flight should be denied the right to buy a firearm - is hard to argue with. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

No Fly, No Buy? No Way

The problem with No Fly-No Buy is the foundation upon which the law would be based. The No Fly List is riddled with problems, from its secrecy (a violation of the Privacy Act), to its over-inclusiveness – the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was on the list at one point. The liberal lion even spoke out against the list, worried that the rights of non-senators could very easily be violated.

IMO Teddy should have been labeled a terrorist. After all, he killed Mary Jo Kopechne and then tried to cover up his culpability. But that doesn't negate the fact that the list is basically a form of 'guilty until proven innocent,' which is a gross perversion of our country's legal foundation.

In a delicious bit of irony, a muslim terrorist group spoke out against the proposed gun control legislation.

CAIR blasts Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act: ‘Mandela himself’ was on watch list

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a statement blasting legislation proposed Tuesday that would keep suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms, saying it lacks due process and unfairly targets Muslims.

“We oppose the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 because it appears to limit the ban on firearms purchases to American Muslims..."

Funny, that's not how I read the bill. I guess CAIR, like most of us, is having a difficult time distinguishing terrorists and muslims.

But they do have a point regarding the secrecy and appeals process. And, as they point out, in addition to Teddy Kennedy, another famous person was on the list.

“Nelson Mandela, then former South African president, Nobel Prize winner and anti-Apartheid leader was on a U.S. terrorism watch list until 2008,” the group said. “Mandela himself needed special State Department clearance to visit the United States in 2008".

It seems like a simple process. Fix the list first, then worry about 'No Fly, No Buy.' But I guess that's too complicated for liberals. So here's a proposal they might understand.

Just to be clear, here's my position.

In other news, Clinton failed to hand over key email to State Department.

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Speaking of Hillary:

Clinton’s State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries

An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to the AP after it sued the government in federal court.

Expect nothing but yawns from the left and the media on those stories. After all, Hillary can do no wrong in their eyes.

While hillary does the political version of rope-a-dope, her partner in crime continues to treat the U.S. Constitution as an afterthought.

Obama: I'm Still Not Enforcing Immigration Law, No Matter What The Court Says

President Barack Obama said Thursday that despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s tie vote, which essentially blocks his immigration plan, the millions of illegal immigrants that he sought to make legal with his executive action will remain a low priority for deportation by his administration.

“Enforcement priorities developed by my administration are not affected by this ruling.”

Translation: “I am above the law. I can do whatever I want, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop me.”

Asshole…

Meanwhile, in Baltimore:

Freddie Gray verdict: Baltimore officer who drove van not guilty on all charges

Baltimore police officer Caesar Goodson, who drove the van in which Freddie Gray was fatally injured, was found not guilty Thursday on all charges, including the most serious count of second-degree depraved-heart murder.

… the state has failed to secure a single conviction following three high-profile trials.

Four other officers await trial, but legal experts are now questioning whether those cases will hold up.

"It does not bode well for prosecution," CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos said.

I'm sure the Black Lives Matter clowns are beside themselves over that, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Remember, folks, a magician distracts you with one hand while tricking you with the other. So keep asking yourself "What are they really up to?"

Devil's Advocate

obama stuck his nose in where it didn't need to be yesterday.

Obama administration issues guidance on transgender access to school bathrooms

The Obama administration issued guidance Friday directing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity.

A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice went to schools Friday with guidelines to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment," the Obama administration said Thursday.

The announcement comes amid heated debate over transgender rights in schools and public life...
Of course, his daughters go to private schools, so he doesn't have to worry about the downstream effects of his pronouncement. But let's think about this for a minute. (here's where the Devil's Advocate thing comes into play.)

I have a daughter. I am firmly committed to protecting her from harm - physical, mental, and emotional. But I must confess that I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding the who-can-use-which-restroom controversy currently distracting us from much more important issues.

As I explained earlier, transgendered people have been using restrooms for years without problems.

If you stop and think about it, transgendered and cross-dressing people ... have been using public restrooms for years now without any serious incidents...

If some guy who thinks he's a gal goes into a ladies restroom, he's going to have to do his business in a stall - enclosed within walls and a closed door, his appendage safely out of sight...

Ditto for a gal who thinks she's a guy. She won't be able to use a urinal, so she'll have to use a stall, where no guy will be traumatized by catching a glimpse of her va-jay-jay.

In either case, other occupants of the restroom won't know and shouldn't care what kind of plumbing the person in the stall is using.

Putting it another way, we already have laws against public indecency, sexual assault, and what have you. That's the same argument we Second Amendment supporters use against gun control laws.

We already have laws against shooting people. Why do we need laws restricting where we can carry our firearms?

So why not let the existing, and IMO adequate, laws manage what is, again IMO, a non-issue? With all the other serious problems facing our nation, why are we letting ourselves be distracted by this nonsense?

I dunno...

It's eerily reminiscent of the controversy over making the $20 bill politically correct.

Coming Soon To A Neighborhood Near You

If you're like me and most of the people I know, you've worked hard all your life to get where you are. I'll even go one step farther, and assume that where you are is a nice middle-class setting. It may be an urban neighborhood, or somewhere in the suburbs, or even (if you're lucky) a nice place out in the country. Regardless, however, I'm willing to bet that most of you  - and your neighbors - spend time and money to keep your home in good shape. You and your neighbors are probably, for the most part, reasonable, law-abiding citizens.

Well, don't get too comfortable. All of that is about to change.

Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.

The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas ... while assigning them government real-estate agents called “mobility counselors” to secure housing in the exurbs.

Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.

It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.

Oh, great. Public housing has proved to be a colossal failure, so the democrats are going to expand that program to decent law-abiding neighborhoods.

Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records.

Let me see if I understand this. Not only can I get in trouble for deciding who I will or will not rent my private property to, but I will also get in trouble for objecting to a male using the same restroom/lockerroom as my daughter.

Give me a great big f**king break!

Castro is expected to finalize the new regulation, known as “Small-Area Fair Market Rents” (SAFMR), this October, in the last days of the Obama presidency.

... Castro’s plan — which requires no congressional approval — would more than double the standard subsidy, while also covering utilities. At the same time, he intends to reduce subsidies for those who choose to stay in housing in poor urban areas, such as Brooklyn. So Section 8 tenants won’t just be pulled to the suburbs, they’ll be pushed there.

Wait, what - "...requires no congressional approval"?!? WTF? How can he get away with that? At the very least the GOP-controlled House should be able to refuse funding for such an absurd idea.

Oh ... never mind...that would require a spine and a pair of cojones. If the repubs had either one or the other, let alone both, they would have put a halt to this crap years ago.

A draft of the new HUD rule anticipates more than 350,000 Section 8 voucher holders will initially be resettled under the SAFMR program. Under Obama, the total number of voucher households has grown to more than 2.2 million.

The document argues that larger vouchers will allow poor urban families to “move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services and educational opportunities.” In other words, offering them more money to move to more expensive neighborhoods will improve their situation.

There's only one problem with that. HUD's own studies show that it doesn't work.

A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.

“Males…were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.

Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.

That makes about as much sense as moving people with Ebola to areas uninfected by that virus in the hope that the healthy people will make the sick people well.

There's more evidence from a recent HUD initiative in Dallas.

Starting in 2012, the agency sweetened Section 8 voucher payments, and pointed inner-city recipients to the far-flung counties surrounding Dallas. As government-subsidized rentals spread in all areas of the Metroplex (163 ZIP codes vs. 129 ZIP codes), so did crime.

Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help police control it. For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the tony bedroom communities north of the city. Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.

In a sweet twist of irony, "Hillary’s own hometown of Chappaqua is fighting Section 8 housing because of links to drugs and crime and other problems."

Crap like this helps explain the rise of Trump. Love him or hate him (and I'm still not sure where I fall on that spectrum) I just may have to don a hazmat suit and vote for him, if only to stop nonsense like this from spreading any farther than it already has.

Starting Off The Week Shaking My Head

You can't make this stuff up.

Army Celebrates Earth Day

The U.S. Army on Thursday pledged to honor “Earth Day” by “reasserting its pledge to address the implications of climate change and assess associated risks to national security.”

In a special message to soldiers, the Army, which faces deep cuts in the ranks of active duty soldiers, said it is focused on “the role the land plays in ensuring the Army remains ready and resilient.”

It urges soldiers to celebrate Earth Day on Friday. The Army also made Earth Day its “focus quote of the day.”

“As our Army celebrates Earth Day 2016, please join us in protecting the environment, enabling the Soldiers’ readiness and securing the environmental future for our citizens and our nation...

“The Army will ‘Acknowledge the Past’ by restoring Army lands and preserving cultural and historical resources. The Army will ‘Engage the Present’ by meeting environmental standards while also enabling Army operations as well as protecting Soldiers, Families and civilians. The Army will ‘Chart the Future’ by bringing the best practices and technologies to bear.”

Why isn't there anything in there about destroying our enemies?

Earlier this year, the office of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter sent out a directive ordering commanders to incorporate climate change into every thing they do, from testing and buying weapons, to planning wars, to conducting exercises.

The Obama administration ranks climate change as one of the biggest threats to national security.

Well, why not? After all, ISIS is contained, and those pesky Russians and Chinese aren't doing anything threatening. Neither are the North Koreans.

Oh, wait...

The Army top brass testified at recent congressional budget hearings that it cannot fight a major war on the schedule called for in the national military strategy because of years of funding cuts.

Look, I get the whole 'take care of the environment' thing. I grew up in the country. I spent a lot of time enjoying the great outdoors. Still do. I respect Mother Nature. I adhere to the old Boy Scout practice of leaving my campsite in better condition than when I found it. I follow the Three R's - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I think alternative and renewable energy is important. Heck, we even capture rainwater for household and irrigation use. But I don't make a religion out of the environment. And I damn sure don't think it's one of the biggest threats to our national security. The military's primary role is to destroy things and kill people. Anything else is secondary.

No, this is not a joke. I wish it was.

That's bad enough. This is even worse.

Student Choir Told To Stop Singing National Anthem At 9/11 Memorial

So your middle school choir organizes a class trip to New York that includes a visit to the sacred ground of the 9/11 memorial. You stand in awe of what happened that terrible day before you were born and decide it would be appropriate for your choir to sing the national anthem.

But wait! The rules for the 9/11 memorial state that you need a permit to sing a song. So about halfway through singing the anthem, a security guard came up to the choir and told them to cease and desist.

It's a wonder that American flags are still allowed there.

This is not the America I grew up in.

Apologies for starting your week on such a down note...

Lawfully v. Legally

In case you missed it, here's an update on obama's executive action allowing millions of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. (earlier post here)

As if we needed another reason to despise lawyers, obama's mouthpiece is trying to convince the Supreme Court that up is down, black is white, and "lawfully" and "legally" mean different things.

Obama Administration Tells Supreme Court 'Lawfully' Doesn't Mean 'Legally'

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in U.S. v. Texas. This case pits 26 states against the Obama administration on the question of whether the Executive Branch ... can unilaterally declare that more than four million foreign nationals who are illegally in the United States may stay here, work here and acquire eligibility for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

The states suing the administration, (Solicitor General Donald) Verrilli told the court, "are fundamentally wrong to claim the (administration's policy) confers on aliens whose presence Congress has deemed unlawful the right to remain lawfully in the United States."

The solicitor general then argued that the administration was not granting foreign nationals illegally in the United States "lawful status." It was instead granting them "lawful presence."

And the difference is...?

"Aliens with lawful status under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] are here lawfully; their presence therefore is not a basis for removal," said Obama's solicitor in his brief. "By contrast, mere 'lawful presence' occurs when the Executive openly tolerate[s] an undocumented alien's continued presence in the United States ... notwithstanding that the alien lacks lawful status and is present in violation of the law."

Let's stop here for a minute and think about that. An "undocumented alien" who is admittedly "present in violation of the law" can nevertheless have a "lawful presence" here?!?

Is this a great country or what?

In Monday's oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito challenged the solicitor's language.

"On Page 16, you quote... 'The individuals covered are lawfully present in the United States,'" Roberts told Verrilli, according to the court's official transcript. "And less than a page later, you say, 'Aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law.'

'Now that must have been a hard sentence to write," said Roberts. "I mean ... they're lawfully present, and yet, they're present in violation of the law."

Verrilli responded: "I actually had no trouble writing it, Mr. Chief Justice."

At this, according to the transcript, laughter arose in the Supreme Court chamber.

Yeah, I'd laugh too - if I wasn't too busy crying over what lawyers and liberals are doing to our country.

This is when Verrilli explained that these words have a different meaning in the "immigration world."

"The reason I had no problem writing it is because that phrase, 'lawful presence' ... means something different to people in the immigration world. What it means in the immigration world is not that you have a legal right to be in the United States, that your status has changed in any way. That you have any defense to removal. It doesn't mean any of those things, and it never has ..."

Roberts interrupted: "Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present in the United States."

"Right," said Verrilli. "Tolerated—"

Roberts interrupted again: "I'm sorry ... just so I get that right ... Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present."

"Correct," said the solicitor general.

Justice Alito then asked if it was true that those granted this unique status "may lawfully work in the United States."

"That's right," said the solicitor.

"And how is it possible," asked Alito, "to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?"

Millions are doing it, the solicitor general assured the justice.

I can hear my mother saying "Just because millions are doing it doesn't mean it's right."

Alito said, "I just don't understand it. ... [H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?"

I'm with you, Judge. I don't understand it either. I guess that's because I'm not a sleazy liberal lawyer.

It reminds me of an old joke:

Q:  What's the difference between "unlawful" and illegal"?

A:  "Unlawful" is against the law. "Illegal" is a sick bird.

*rimshot*

Some Illegal Immigrants Are More Equal Than Others

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday concerning obama's executive action halting deportation of millions of illegal aliens illegally living in the U.S. - illegally.

The Obama administration’s plan to defer deportation for more than four million illegal immigrants faced an uncertain future Monday after the Supreme Court appeared split on the program’s legality.

Did I mention they are here illegally?

I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't understand why the president has the power to ignore or override the law of the land. But listen to the words of Sonia Sotomayor, alleged "wise Latina."

The four million immigrants potentially eligible for a reprieve “are living in the shadows” and “are here whether we want them or not,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, citing limited government resources for deportations.

Oh, so now 'limited government resources' is legal grounds for ruling on the limits of presidential power?

GMAFB.

The court’s four conservative justices voiced skepticism of the Obama administration’s immigration policy, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, which would provide work authorization and a reprieve to illegal immigrants with children who are U.S. citizens, if they meet certain criteria. Liberal justices noted that the president has wide discretion on deportation matters, given the government’s limited resources and the more than 11 million immigrants believed to be living in this country illegally.

The Department of Homeland Security, which enforces many immigration laws, has said it lacks the resources to deport the millions of illegal immigrants presently within the U.S. ...

In an interesting twist, however, the obama administration evidently has enough resources to deport certain selected immigrants.

Cuban Activist Living in USA for Nearly Half a Century Ordered Deported

Living for nearly half a century in the United States offers no guarantee that one can stay.

That is a reality now facing Cuban exile activist Ramón Saúl Sánchez, leader of the Democracy Movement, who received a letter Thursday from the federal government ordering him to leave the country as soon as possible.

Sánchez, who obtained legal entry into the U.S. in what is known as a “parole,” had applied for permanent residency in 2002...

That permanent residency request has been denied and his parole has now also expired, according to the letter issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

“You are not authorized to remain in the United States and should make arrangements to depart as soon as possible,” stated the letter, dated April 7 and received by Sánchez on Thursday. “Failure to depart may result in your being found ineligible for immigration benefits and inadmissible to the United States in the future.”

Gee, I wonder why, after 14 years, the federal government finally decided that Sánchez now must "depart as soon as possible.” Could it have something to do with his political protests against his former home - Cuba?

Sánchez is a well-known activist in South Florida, who also has staged a number of hunger strikes to bring attention to various Cuba-related causes...

(Sánchez has organized a protest) to a recent denial by Cuban leader Raúl Castro that any political prisoners were behind bars on the island.

Sánchez characterized the letter as "political pressure" by the Obama administration...

Somehow I doubt if the liberal idiots on the Supreme Court will take this blatantly political move by obama into account when deliberating on the illegal immigration case currently in front of them.

Deja Vu In The Baltics

A few days ago I posted something about the ongoing Russian military buildup in the Baltics and subsequent sabre rattling, as evidenced by the buzzing of a U.S. Navy destroyer. I closed that post by making fun of the Navy's administration-mandated response: moving toward gender-neutral uniforms.

Lo and behold - yesterday there was a story about Russian fighters buzzing a U.S. Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance plane flying over the Baltic Sea.

A U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane was intercepted by a Russian fighter plane over the Baltic Sea in what American officials said on Sunday was an unsafe and unprofessional manner, the second such instance in a week.

The Russian jet came to within 50 feet of the Air Force plane and then executed a barrel roll over the American plane’s left side to its right...

Even though the incident involved an Air Force plane, the Navy responded immediately.*

Navy Secretary Bends Rules About Ship Naming to Honor Democratic Politician

(*Okay, that wasn't really the Navy's response. The ship-naming fiasco took place a few days ago, but still, it highlights the ineffectiveness - one might even say the timidness - of the obama administration when confronted by Russian provocation.)

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is under fire for bending service rules in order to name the next Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer after a retired Democratic politician.

Mabus, who has previously been accused of politicizing the ship-naming process, announced Monday that the destroyer will be named after Carl Levin, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Michigan who is still alive and did not serve in the U.S. military.

Mabus disregarded Navy ship-naming rules stipulating that destroyers should be named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including secretaries of the Navy.

There have been exceptions made in the past. However, those exceptions are typically reserved for people of unquestioned stature, not political hacks.

“There are the typical exceptions,” the Navy explains in an online document produced by the History and Heritage Command. “Roosevelt was named in honor of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, while Winston Churchill honors the great war leader of World War II.”

Other exceptions include "destroyers named for Thomas Hudner, a retired Navy flag officer, Paul Ignatius, a former Navy secretary, and former Sen. Daniel Inouye, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for World War II Army combat service in Italy."

Speaking of Medal of Honor awardees, there are nearly 200 Navy and Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients who have never had ships named after them. How does Carl Levin, who never served a single day in the military, jump ahead of them? What was his significant contribution that warrants the honor of a ship named after him?

Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration’s major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

This is just the latest in a series of obama administration moves towards politicizing the Navy.

An examination by The Washington Times of the 71 Arleigh Burke monikers shows Mr. Levin is the only one — except Winston Churchill — who does not meet the Navy guideline for destroyers. Most Arleigh Burke honorees are naval war heroes; a significant number earned the Medal of Honor. There are several Navy secretaries.

(Secretary of the Navy) Mabus, a former Democratic governor of Mississippi, has irked some Republicans for veering from tradition by naming warships after social activists and politicians with no link to the military.

Since the start of the Obama administration, Mr. Mabus has named combat logistics supply ships after civil rights leader Medgar Evers and leftist farmworker Cesar Chavez.

All previous Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships had been named for famous explorers or people who made significant contributions to the military, as called for in Navy conventions.

He named a littoral combat ship after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrat, who was seriously wounded in a January 2011 assassination attempt.

In January Mr. Mabus again broke with past tradition. He named a fleet replenishment oiler, TAO-205, after civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat. Mr. Lewis voted for removing all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2007 and from Afghanistan in 2011.

Navy guidelines had said such ships are named for rivers or people instrumental to maritime and aviation design and production.

But Mr. Mabus changed the convention last year, saying the 17 oilers will be named after civil and human rights activists.

Ah, yes. Hope and Change. Fundamental Transformation.

obama is not politicizing the military.

He's pussifying it...

No More Hugging The Bear

Sometimes it amazes me how several different stories come together at the same time to highlight an underlying problem. Here's the latest example.

I was catching up on some back reading - in this case, last month's issue of the American Legion magazine. It had an article about NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove of the U.S. Air Force discussing the current state of affairs between Russia and the NATO alliance.

For too long, according to NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO has “hugged the bear” – a reference to Western efforts to reassure Russia, carve a special Russian place within NATO headquarters, and downgrade the quantity and quality of military assets in Europe. What NATO has gotten in return, Breedlove concludes, is “a revanchist Russia that has put force back on the table as an instrument of national power” – a Russia that is “blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that have been the foundation of European security for decades.”

(Earlier this year) the Russian military announced it had reactivated the 1st Guards Tank Army, a large armored force based in western Russia equipped with some 500 T-72 and T-80 main battle tanks. In January, Moscow unveiled plans to deploy three new divisions on Russia’s western borders. There were 160 Russian incursions into Baltic airspace in 2015. After attending the annual Conference of European Armies, retired Army Gen. Robert Scales reported that the consensus among European military brass is that “Putin’s most dangerous and perhaps most likely next move will be against the Baltic states.”

Shortly after reading that came the news about Russian jets buzzing a U.S. destroyer in international waters.

Russian jets speed past US Navy destroyer in 'simulated attack profile'

Two Russian warplanes buzzed a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer in the Baltic Sea in what a defense official called a "simulated attack profile," one of several close encounters between the destroyer and the aircraft this week.

The USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) was conducting flight operations with a Polish helicopter Monday when two Russian Su-24 attack aircraft approached at an “unsafe” speed and altitude and buzzed the Navy destroyer as the helicopter was taking off from the destroyer’s flight deck, the defense official told Fox News.

The Russian jets came within 1,000 yards of the destroyer, flying just 100 feet off the ground, a defense official said. The next day, a Russian jet came within just 30 feet of the destroyer, the defense official said.

The story goes on to relate a series of similar incidents. And how has obama responded to those provocative acts?

That was highlighted in the third article I read.

Navy moves toward gender-neutral uniforms

...the Navy strives to reach gender neutrality in uniform for sailors.

This most likely came about as a result of a media discussion in July 2015 about U.S. considerations of transgender personnel currently in the military.  Some of them were wearing the female versions of military uniforms of several countries.

For God's sake, do not click to embiggen. You've been warned.

Yes, you read that right. At a moment of great strategic challenge and peril, the Navy is focused on implementing obama's progressive agenda.

It's not just the Navy. Our entire military is over-deployed, underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, underresourced, and totally lacking in adult supervision.

This is not a rant against gays or transgendered or women or any other SIG (Special Interest Group). It is, however, a rant against the shabby manner in which our military is being managed - or more accurately, mismanaged. If there is one group of people that should be accorded special treatment it is those who have voluntarily put this country's interests ahead of their own.

But that's what you get when a 'progressive' is in charge.

Obama's Hypocrisy Is On Display - Again

As we all know, barack obama is one of the most antigun presidents we've ever suffered under.

He's also, to no one's surprise, one of the biggest hypocrites we've ever seen.

Take, for example, his recent action in commuting the sentences of convicted felons.

Obama has commuted sentences for 33 firearms convicts

Barbara Hollingsworth of CNS News reports that Senator Richard Shelby has sent a letter to Loretta Lynch criticizing the Obama administration for commuting the sentences of 33 criminals convicted of firearm-related offenses. “By my count, the President has commuted the sentences of over 200 of these ‘non-violent’ federal inmates, of which 33 were convicted of firearm-related offenses,” Shelby wrote. He also pointed to the hypocrisy of commuting the sentences of firearms offenders while pushing for gun control.

... Obama’s latest set of commutations puts a number of gun offenders back on the streets. Indeed, according to Shelby, 12 of the 61 recipients of Obama’s leniency were convicted of one, if not more, firearm-related offenses. These include:

Seven convictions of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;

four convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon; and

two convictions of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

At a hearing in January of this year, Shelby quizzed Lynch about this issue. As Shelby reminds Lynch:

I. . .asked you how the President can say he is ‘committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence’ when his own Administration is not even following through with the sentences of criminals with firearm-related convictions.

At the time, you said that you were not aware of the particular sentence commutations involving firearm-related convictions, but that you would look into these cases. We have yet to hear back from you or the Department [of Justice] about these or any other questions from the hearing, which were due at the end of February.

Evidently, Lynch has no good answer to the question Shelby posed.

In his letter, Shelby said that his subcommittee will not approve any increased funding for the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which screens inmates’ applications for clemency before they are submitted to the president. He explained:

I have no confidence in the ability of the Office of the Pardon Attorney to properly screen requests for executive clemency or to effectively convey any recommendations throughout the Administration. I want to do everything I can to keep our communities safer, and that includes keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and violent offenders.

Right now, I am unsure if the Administration shares this goal.

There's a reason convicted felons are denied the right to keep and bear arms. Evidently obama thinks he knows better.

Random Observations On Brussels

Life has been a little hectic lately. Plus I didn't want to comment on the tragedy in Brussels until more information was available. But I think the time is right to toss out a few random observations regarding the bombings and subsequent events.

First, a comment by the esteemed Thomas Sowell. I wish more people would pay attention to what this man has to say.

"Historians of the future, when they look back on our times, may be completely baffled when trying to understand how Western civilization welcomed vast numbers of people hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization, people who had been taught that they have a right to kill those who do not share their beliefs.“

One of the first things that occurred to me was "What are the chances of a similar attack here in the U.S.?"

U.S. intelligence and security capabilities make a Brussels-style attack less likely on American soil, but porous borders leave the USA vulnerable to terrorists, said David Deptula, a retired general who led Air Force intelligence efforts.

From Oct. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended 337,117 people trying to enter the USA illegally...

No word on how many people actually made it inside our country illegally.

Somehow, that doesn't make me feel comfortable.

But not to worry. obama is doing his usual outstanding job of protecting and reassuring the American people.

Oh, wait...

Obama criticized for doing tango 2 days after bombings in Brussels

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama were coaxed from their table at a state dinner in Argentina on Wednesday night to dance the tango. And critics already furious that the president had attended a baseball game in Cuba following Tuesday’s deadly attacks in Brussels were unmoved.

“When everybody else is worried about where ISIS is, who they are going to kill next, and [if they] are going to come over here,” former Judge Andrew Napolitano said on the cable network’s morning show, “the president shouldn’t be in Argentina doing the tango.”

Nicolle Wallace, former communications director for President George W. Bush, said Obama’s reluctance to alter his itinerary “puts him vastly … out of step with the entire American public, not just Republicans.

“His policy choice was to proceed with everything on his schedule and not to react to the threat of terrorism,” Wallace said on MSNBC. “There were mothers lying dead while their, you know, family members were at the crime scene yesterday, and to [make it] look like the priority is to go on a foreign trip instead of pausing for a minute and explaining that to America is a communications crime.”

Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe:

Poland's Leaders Want No Refugees After Brussels Blasts

Poland's president on Thursday threw his support behind a government decision to renege on a deal to accept thousands of refugees, blaming security concerns raised by Tuesday's attacks in Brussels.

The move could prompt similar decisions by other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, many of which have protested — or, like Hungary and Slovakia, sued over — the European Union's plan to divide up some 120,000 refugees among member countries.

Poland's conservative, anti-migrant government had grudgingly confirmed the previous government's commitment to take in 7,000 refugees from Syria and Eritrea over the next two years. At the same time, sensing general uncertainty about receiving migrants into a mostly homogenous nation, the officials stressed that permissions to settle would be preceded by meticulous security and identity checks.

But following the Brussels attacks, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo said "I see no possibility for migrants to come to Poland now."

Our president dances. Poland's leader protects his country. I wonder if we could trade ours for theirs...?

Two Things

I'm unexpectedly out of town and my access to the InterWeb is limited, so don't expect too much from this post. Two things:

First, I have to give barack obama credit for one thing. I have very low expectations for him, and he constantly exceeds them by doing worse than I thought possible. The latest example is Barry's response to the tragic events in Brussels.

Second, in a previous post I referred to the power of tequila to make me other people behave foolishly. OldNFO commented that he was glad there weren't cell phones back in his youth. Today I ran across the graphic below.

Truth!

Climate Change? Attack!

Our armed forces have one simple underlying mission - to destroy our nation's enemies.

At its most basic, that involves destroying things and killing people.

A more nuanced way to say it is that the military projects America's power to further our national interests.

According to barack obama, that includes fighting global warming climate change.

Last week, the Obama administration gave the military a new assignment.

“The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies,” the Washington Times reported... The U.S. Armed Forces must show ‘resilience’ and beat back the threat based on ‘actionable science.’”

As the Times explained, “The directive, ‘Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,’ is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat...

Remember that line. We'll come back to it a little further down.

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer who now serves with the Heritage Foundation, said the idea is a bad one.

“I understand the motivation behind and intent for such guidance,” he said. “The problem is that it includes such a wide variety of issues with no explication or context that enables the offices mentioned to differentiate and prioritize activities and efforts across time or intensity.”

Let's set aside for now the debate over whether or not global warming climate change is really occurring. There is a more important question.

Should we distract the U.S. military with a politicized agenda of addressing climate change, when there are people in the world still shooting at us? (emphasis added)

I'd like to think that most reasonable people would answer that question not only "No," but "Hell no!" Sadly, however, the obama administration is letting environmental concerns prevent attacks on ISIS-controlled oil wells, pipelines, and even trucks.

A former CIA director says concerns about environmental impact have prevented the White House from bombing oil wells that finance the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“We didn’t go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage..."

Our military’s proper role isn’t to attack global warming climate change. It is to destroy our enemies. Let's give it the direction and resources that it needs to accomplish this mission, and stop shackling it with politically correct nonsense.

Here's an example - just one of many - of where we need to provide direction and resources to deal with an emerging and serious threat to our national security.

U.S. aircraft carriers’ ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

The United States’ aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States’ greatest military strengths.

A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy’s carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either “operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure.”

The report, titled “Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers,” focuses on China’s burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD refers to a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy the ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is much the same as it was when moats were dug around castles, except that today’s moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft — all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

The report highlights China’s capabilities because of its “emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement.” This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the “pacing threat” to the U.S. military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter U.S. operations. In the Baltic, Russia’s naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States — by operating as it always has — is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in favor of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

“Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult — if not impossible — to defend against.”

There are counter-measures to the growing A2/AD threat, and the Navy is currently exploring them. But I fear that, under obama, the primary focus will be on the environmental impact of those counter-measures, not their effectiveness against anti-ship missiles, drones, and other such things.

Oh, and while we're at it, the Navy is short of submarines and missiles.

China’s recent actions to militarize the South China Sea have changed the operational landscape, and the U.S. Pacific Command needs more attack submarines and long-range surface missiles to keep up with the evolving threat, PACOM commander Adm. Harry Harris told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

The Air Force is running out of bombs and missiles.

The U.S. Air Force has fired off more than 20,000 missiles and bombs since the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS began 15 months ago, according to the Air Force, leading to depleted munitions stockpiles and calls to ramp up funding and weapons production.

As the U.S. ramps up its campaign against the Islamist terror group in Iraq and Syria, the Air Force is now "expending munitions faster than we can replenish them," Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh said in a statement.

The Army is being stressed by multiple deployments.

President Barack Obama this fall announced that about 10,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan through most of 2016 — with a smaller group staying even longer. For many of those troops, it won't be their first deployment, or even their second.

America's war in Afghanistan has seen multiple deployments become routine for military families.

The Marines would have trouble mobilizing for a large-scale war.

The internal military report leads with a warning, typed in bold: If called to war tonight, the Marine Corps could only meet operational demands by deploying nearly every heavy-lift transport helicopter remaining in its inventory.

That would mean activating all aircraft that are down for long-term maintenance...

After more than a decade of relentless combat – a period marked by repeated deployments to the Middle East, ballooning procurement costs and cuts to defense spending – the Marine Corps’ workhorse helicopter, the CH-53E Super Stallion, is worn out and in need of serious attention.

Those are just a few examples of problems that need immediate attention. And yet barry and his gang think the greatest threat facing our military is global warming climate change?!?

GMAFB.

obama Sends Combat Troops To Non-War

While Trump, Cruz, Bernie, hillary, and the rest of the clowns are stealing everyone's attention, barry is slipping this kind of crap under the radar.

With War in Afghanistan over, Army prepares to send Infantry Battalion to Helmand Province

Yeah, that confused the heck outta me, too. I didn't know the Afghanistan war was over. Did we win?

It turns out that the war is still very much ongoing.

From the New York Times:

It will be the largest deployment of American troops outside major bases in Afghanistan since the end of the NATO combat mission in 2014. Though the military insists that the soldiers will not take active combat roles, American Special Operations forces have increasingly been drawn into the fighting in Helmand as one important district after another has fallen or been threatened by Taliban insurgents.

"the military insists that the soldiers will not take active combat roles"

I sure hope that doesn't mean they can't shoot back if someone shoots at them. Considering some of the ludicrous ROEs they had to operate under in the past, that's not a given. In fact, it wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that the State Department finally got around to designating ISIS in Afghanistan as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization."

... the change now means that U.S. forces can actively pursue ISIS elements and attack them as a threat to the United States. Previous rules of engagement required ISIS elements to first pose a threat to U.S. forces in the area...

But I digress. Back to the main story.

Col. Michael T. Lawhorn, a spokesman for the United States military in Afghanistan, said in a statement that the new deployment would provide protection for the current Special Operations troops in Helmand and give extra support and training for the 215th Corps of the Afghan National Army. Afghan forces in Helmand have taken heavy casualties in recent months and have been cut off by the Taliban in many places.

This seems a little oddly worded, but it looks like maybe the new troops will take over some of the force protection (i.e. Guard Towers) around base, freeing up some Special Ops guys to go do what they do best, ventilate bad guys.  And maybe some will be embedded with Afghan units?  It's really not too clear.

The Guardian out of UK had a bit more to note about the oddity of providing combat troops to what is not supposed to be combat:

In keeping with Barack Obama’s formal declaration that the US is not engaged in combat, despite elite forces recently participating in an hours-long battle in Helmand, defense officials said the additional troops would not take part in combat. But they will help the existing Helmand force defend itself against Taliban attacks, officials said.

Clear as mud. It's awfully damn hard to accomplish the mission when no one knows what the mission is.

Sounds like another typical obama flustercluck... with our troops left holding the bag, as usual.

I Have A Dream

Many of us have long wondered why hillary hasn't been indicted yet for her blatant disregard of laws governing national security and classified information. The easy answer, of course, is that the Justice Department, staffed by obama drones, would never let such an embarrassment come to pass. But with the latest revelation that barry himself emailed hillary at her unsecured private email account, and that at least 18 of those emails are classified, raises a more interesting and troubling possibility - one that might have significant constitutional implications.

Obama may be Ensnared in the Clinton Email Scandal

Perhaps President Obama’s involvement is the reason that the FBI has not yet referred charges to the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case.  It may be metastasizing so quickly and so dangerously that not only are agents and lawyers within the agency having trouble keeping up with new evidence of wrongdoing, but that the scandal itself now threatens a constitutional crisis.  The Department of State’s refusal to release 18 emails exchanged between President Obama and Clinton through her unsecured home server at best creates a conflict of interest for Obama while at worst it raises the likelihood that the President has run afoul of national security laws and ought to be impeached.

(Obama had originally said he learned about the private email through new reports -- a typical Obama story -- but backtracked later.)

... It seems quite likely that in the eighteen emails classified information was discussed as conceived under federal statutes, and (under) one of Obama’s own executive orders regarding dissemination of foreign intelligence...

Beneath all Clinton’s implausible denials and claims of right wing persecution, behind Josh Earnest’s improper insistence that nothing really serious is going on at the FBI, is the very real possibility that Clinton has now enmeshed the President into her scandalous intrigues, with serious constitutional implications.  Obama cannot ethically continue to preside over this investigation (which, effectively, he does as the chief executive.)   But removing himself would require Obama to actually care about the ethics of the matter, and secondly potentially expose himself to criminal liability.   The situation is quite akin to the Watergate scandal at this point, in that government officials have hidden or erased potentially damaging documents, and the President effectively presides over investigations that could subject him, aides, and former aides, to criminal liability.

FBI Director James Comey appears to long have had sufficient evidence to charge Clinton, but seemingly has so far been stayed by countervailing influences.  On the one hand there are obvious political concerns and pressures.   On the other is a continuing flow of evidence against Clinton that only makes the case against her stronger.  But the Obama emails now complicate the case to an extraordinary degree.  Does Comey have them, and if not, has he demanded them?  If Obama refuses, then the President is effectively hiding probative evidence.

If Comey were to get the emails, and they did contain born classified information (as is likely) it would be difficult for Comey to proceed against Clinton without implicating Obama.  Almost certainly, the Obama Justice Department would never pursue a prosecution that exposed him to criminal liability.

... the only other way to achieve a semblance of justice might be through Congressional action.  Obama would then have to formally invoke executive privilege to hide the emails, which would strongly echo Nixonian tactics and be politically damaging, though Republicans would be at risk too.  Hillary would certainly claim that Congressional hearings prove the whole affair is political after all, and the Democrats would try to stymie matters and use the mainstream media to vilify Republicans as they always do.  

  
All this makes FBI Director Comey’s situation increasingly untenable.  He knows now that there is no way Attorney General Loretta Lynch can fairly and properly evaluate the evidence his agents are fast compiling.  If he continues to hesitate, due to political pressure or in hopes of building the perfect case, the situation will fester and worsen.  If Comey is really the stand-up guy that many say, he will act soon, in order to force the hands of Lynch and Obama, put Hillary in the legal peril that she has earned, and Obama in jeopardy too if that is where the evidence leads.  In the probable event the administration does nothing or pushes back against an FBI referral, Comey will have to resign, and Congress will have to act.

Just to make things more interesting, all of this is taking place during a presidential election campaign. I know it's highly unlikely, but thinking about the possibility of hillary winning the democrat nomination and then getting indicted brings a huge smile to my face. The fact that obama might get dragged into the whole mess makes that smile even wider.

As an added bonus, that smile makes my wife wonder what I've been up to...