It's time,
On the one hand, here is what the Islamic State is bent on bringing into our country:
The Islamic State (ISIS) may be thinking of using human carriers to infect its enemies with the Ebola virus, a national security expert claims, saying terror groups would not have to weaponize the deadly virus to spread the disease.
"In the context of terrorist activity, it doesn't take much sophistication to go that next step to use a human being as a carrier," Retired Captain Al Shimkus, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, told Forbes.
Shimkus said the "individual exposed to the Ebola virus would be the carrier," and with West Africa in an open epidemic, it would not be difficult for terrorists to steal infected bodily fluids to use elsewhere.
Shimkus said that ISIS or another terror group could also send some operatives into an outbreak region so they could intentionally expose themselves to the virus, and once exposed, they could head to a target city or country. [emphasis added]
Well, now. Kudos to Captain Shimkus for pointing out a self-evident fact about which we here at Political Pistachio have been sounding the alarm for the past three months.
But on this fine, crisp October day, he's not the only one:
Amanda Teckman, who wrote the paper "The Bioterrorist Threat of Ebola in East Africa and Implications for Global Health and Security" says "the threat of an Ebola bioterrorist attack in East Africa is a global health and security concern, and should not be ignored."
....or in the United States, either.
Naturally, both Captain Shimkus and Ms. Teckman go on to hedge their bets, spouting the Obama Regime line about our "world-class healthcare system" that O is tearing down and how ISIS "doesn't need to "get the West's attention" with biosuicide attacks because "beheadings are enough". Unless, of course, it isn't primarily about sending a message, but about killing as many Americans as inhumanly possible, by any means necessary and available. And in that regard, ebola, weaponized or not, would be highly effective, no matter what Nicholas G. Evans wants us to believe.
And now, the contrast: the latest Barack Hussein Obama import:
If President Barack Obama closed the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, "it would be a direct confrontation with Congress," Representative Peter King told Newsmax on Friday.
"It would be a lawless act, and it would be an act that would poison relations between Congress and the president," the New York-4 Republican said. "I can see very severe action taken by Congress to counter that."
You mean like the "volcanic" all-hat-and-no-cattle congressional reaction to the Bergdahl-Taliban Five trade? We'll see, Representative King, we'll see.
King, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, was among many Republicans who slammed the administration over news reports that Obama might close Guantanamo and transfer its detainees to U.S. prisons without congressional approval.
A senior White House official told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that Obama remained "unwavering in his commitment" to closing Guantanamo.
Of course he is. I don't know what he's been waiting for the past two years. He's past his last election; even if he leaves office when he's constitutionally required to at Noon on January 20th, 2017, he had four years in which to do whatever he wanted, law and Constitution and the will of Congress and the people be damned. And he's just now getting around to closing Gitmo? Maybe he really is that lazy.
But then, remember the downpayment he made on emptying Gitmo back in June: the Bowe Bergdahl-Taliban Five trade, releasing the top most hardcore jihadists in exchange for a deserter at best, a defector to the Taliban at worst. Which O also did illegally without giving a thirty-day heads-up to Congress as required by law. And three of those five "Dream-Teamers" are now top ISIS commanders, which is funny because I thought they were supposed to be confined to the territory of Qatar for a year. That's something to keep in mind when you hear about The One's "coalition of the invisible".
But at least the Taliban Five have to go to their own trouble and expense of getting back on our soil to wreak havoc. Here's a roster of the jihadists King Hussein just can't wait to bring to a neighborhood near you:
The last set of transfers occurred in September 2013 — and an office of the State Department tasked with finding countries that would take the others was closed by the administration in January.
Among the terrorists being held there are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington; accused co-conspirators Walid bin Attash and Ramzi Bin al-Shahb; and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is charged with leading the plot to bomb the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed seventeen American sailors in 2000. [emphasis added]
That's right, peeps, the Regime closed the office whose job was finding other countries to take this rabid devilspawn. Why? Because Red Barry is determined to bring them here and subject them to as much of our civilian criminal justice system, complete with all the constitutional rights and protections that we no longer enjoy, as any other non-white, non-conservative, and non-Republican American faces. Which is to say, little or none whatsoever. And then, after the inevitable mistrials or acquittals, they'll all be released into the general U.S. population.
This is what Barack Obama calls "justice". Oh, and "upholding our values". "Our" being a much narrower term for him than it is for thee and me. And then KSM and WBA and RBA-S and AA-RA-N can link up with the probably-hundreds of jihadists already on U.S. soil, and it'll be damn the infidels, full speed a-head.
Exit thought: Congress will never impeach Barack Obama for at least two reasons: (1) Republicans do not want to be the ones who "lynch" The First Black President; and (2) there will never be the votes in the Senate to remove O from office even if the GOP runs the table on November 4th. But, given that Joe Biden would succeed him, I have to wonder: Is it better to have a purblind three-watt bulb like Slow Joe holding down the fort for two years, or the Manchurian Candidate in power now? And how would that affect the 2016 election, assuming it ever takes place?
No comments:
Post a Comment