Obama’s Middle East Mess Will Lead To Massacre, Crises For 2017 President

Numerous military sources report an impending disaster is just beyond the horizon.

Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, will fall to Taliban forces and thousands of Afghans who have supported U.S. forces since the occupation began in 2001 could face tremendous suffering.

And the worst part is Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama knows it’s coming, and he’s decided protecting his legacy is more important than protecting the lives of innocent Afghan and American soldiers.

The dire situation in Afghanistan, especially in the region surrounding Kabul, is well-documented. On April 22, Taliban leaders announced they would dramatically increase their military efforts in the region, warning all “foreign occupiers” their forces are growing. In the following weeks, numerous well-orchestrated attacks hit multiple strategic targets.

On May 14, 14 people were killed in an attack on a Kabul hotel. On May 17, the Taliban organized an assault on a European Union vehicle, killing three. On May 19, a massive suicide car bomb killed at least six people in the parking lot of the Afghan Ministry of Justice.

Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani’s public support has waned in recent months due to the increasing presence and power of Taliban forces and his inability to strike a peace agreement with the terrorist organization, which many say is demanding a role in the government.

Ghani’s administration insists the nation is not on the verge of collapse, but as recently as March 2014, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., whom Obama nominated to be the United States’ next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff earlier this month, warned pulling troops out of Afghanistan would likely lead to the destruction of the U.S.-supported government in Afghanistan.

On May 13, John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said in a speech before the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The evidence strongly suggests that Afghanistan lacks the capacity—financial, technical, managerial, or otherwise—to maintain, support, and execute much of what has been built or established during more than 13 years of international assistance.”

Without further training and military support, Sopko warned, the $65 billion spent on the Afghan National Security Forces would be wasted.

Despite all of the signs indicating Afghan forces are not ready to take the reins on their own, Obama planned to continue reducing troops in 2015 down to 5,500, but was convinced to abandon the proposal after facing stiff opposition from military leaders.

Obama administration officials now plan to maintain current troop levels well into 2016, keeping just enough soldiers on the ground to prevent a collapse, but not providing enough military might to improve the dire situation.

In other words, Obama is no longer fighting to win, but he’s unwilling to face the political backlash that’s sure to come if Kabul falls to the Taliban the way much of Iraq has to ISIS. Obama is simply buying time until a new president takes office in 2017.

Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers continue to fight in a war they are destined to lose, and Afghans who have supported U.S. and U.N. forces must live their lives each day knowing their own military is ill-equipped to deal with future threats and that Taliban forces have slowly been building in regions surrounding Kabul.

Because of President Obama’s lack of leadership and lack of respect for the lives of all those involved in this tremendous struggle for freedom, thousands of innocent lives hang dangerously in the balance, and there’s no indication Afghans will be able to escape the very same horrific fate many in Iraq are now facing thanks to equally selfish decisions by Obama in that nation.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trouble For Obama: Dozens Of Congressional Dems Turning Against His Big Power Grab

Democrats in the House and Senate are aligning with Republicans in an attempt to build a legislative dam against sweeping new water rules being imposed by Obama’s EPA — rules that critics claim could sink business and destroy private property rights. As The Hill reports, “Dozens of congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration’s new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways.”

On Wednesday, Western Journalism told you about the controversial new Environmental Protection Agency mandate that some consider more of a power grab than an effort to keep America’s waterways clean and healthy. Technically, the new rule is couched as an extension of the Clean Water Act of 1972, thus allowing EPA regulators and bureaucrats to significantly broaden their reach and authority without working through Congress.

This move comes after two separate Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the EPA and the Corps of Engineers’ previous attempts to expand on the Clean Water Act — a move that, if fully implemented, Heritage Foundation Agricultural Policy Research Fellow Daren Bakst argues would be “devastating to property rights.”

Despite congressional attempts to push back against the EPA-led action, the regulation was made final on Wednesday. The article in The Hill notes that the stated purpose of the rule is to “clarify that small streams, wetlands, headwaters and tributaries are covered by the Clean Water Act and the rules that go along with it.”

But Capitol Hill opponents of the EPA’s aggressive action are not giving up the fight. “Three moderate Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House have joined the GOP in opposition, but leave them far from the two-thirds majorities they would need for a veto-proof vote to overturn the rule.”

It comes as no surprise that a spokesman for the Obama administration has attacked Republicans opponents of the rule; but in his slam against adversaries to the EPA action, the Obama mouthpiece also took a brutal swing at Democrats fighting the measure.

The Hill coverage of the controversy includes this incendiary bit of administration rhetoric: “’The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water,’ said Brian Deese, Obama’s top environmental adviser.”

One of the Senate Democrats — threatening “polluters” — fighting to undo the EPA waterways rule through legislative action is West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a frequent critic of Obama’s environmental initiatives.

…Manchin accused the EPA of “once again dangerously overreaching its boundaries by expanding the definition of water sources it can regulate.”

He said the rule “will certainly have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, hindering businesses, manufacturing and energy production.”

Among the most vocal critics of the rule are farmers and ranchers who claim the EPA action would mandate a costly permitting process for, and ultimately federal control over, everyday agricultural tasks like digging ditches and spraying fertilizer.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

After Giving ‘Space To Destroy,’ Baltimore Mayor Wants Americans To Save Her Skin In Big Way

The dollar costs of the recent Baltimore riots are starting to be added up, and they’re staggering. Not only are these figures climbing into the tens-of-millions of dollars, but Baltimore officials are looking for outside help to pay the bills — that means they want U.S. taxpayers to shell out to bail out the budget of a city criticized by many for doing little to stop the mayhem.

According to an article in The Baltimore Sun, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake — who infamously said she initially wanted to give the Freddie Gray rioters “who wished to destroy, space to do that” — will now lead the charge to seek “reimbursement” from the federal government for Baltimore’s expenses in dealing with the violent protestors, looters, arsonists and trouble-makers who terrorized parts of the city.

Baltimore’s finance director says, at this point, the price tag for the city’s part in covering riot expenses will be at least $20 million — that includes costs of police personnel and equipment. And guess where they want to go to get some of the money to cover that bill?

“Henry J. Raymond, Baltimore’s finance director, said the city can temporarily cover the costs from its rainy day fund while seeking reimbursement for up to 75 percent from Federal Emergency Management Agency,” reports The Sun newspaper.

Those federal funds would, supposedly, be made available if President Obama issues a disaster declaration because of the widespread damage from the racially charged rioting and the police action in response to it. “The $20 million estimate released by city officials does not include the cost to businesses of the unrest. The figure also does not include state or federal costs. It’s unclear when those figures will be tallied.”

To be clear, that estimated $20 million hit to the city’s budget doesn’t take into account the untold cost of repairing or rebuilding some 380 businesses attacked by rioters during the unrest that was sparked by the police-custory death of Freddie Gray. More federal funds could be directed toward getting those businesses going again, according to Bill Cole, president of the Baltimore Development Corp.

“Businesses may also be eligible for loans from the Small Business Administration, which has estimated business damages of at least $9 million. The city will assist those seeking federal funds, Cole said.”

A recent article in the Baltimore Business Journal points out the additional costs to the city in terms of lost revenue because of businesses being shut down as well as tourists and conventions avoiding an area seen as tense and troubled. The report cited the lingering losses to Los Angeles following the riots there close to a quarter-century ago.

A 2004 study on the 1992 Los Angeles riots showed that over the 10 years following the riots there was a cumulative loss of at least $3.8 billion in taxable sales in the city.

Victor A. Matheson, co-author of the study, said he found that the economic impact of riots is even larger than that of natural disasters, because businesses are more likely to see natural disasters as a one-time occurrence as opposed to an ongoing safety issue.

Do you think Baltimore should be declared a disaster zone, making the city eligible for financial assistance from taxpayers outside the area? Feel free to let us know what you think by commenting below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What Will Soon Happen To The ‘Taliban 5′ Makes Bergdahl Trade Look Even Worse For Obama

The so-called “Taliban Five,” who were exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May of 2014, could be free to re-enter the battlefield as early as Monday.

Bergdahl was charged with desertion in March of this year after disappearing from his post in Afghanistan in 2009.

By the terms of the exchange, the five fighters, who were hand-picked by the Taliban, were to remain in Qatar under government surveillance for one year following their release from Guantanamo Bay.

According to Fox News, at least three of the five have already sought to reconnect with their old terror networks since arriving in Qatar.

Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which oversees the facility, classified all five men as “high risk,” not eligible for release.

Among them is Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as deputy minister of intelligence for the Taliban; Mullah Mohammad Fazi, deputy defense minister for the Taliban; Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior military commander; Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, a former provincial governor who reputedly met with Iran to plot attacks against American forces; and Mohammad Nabi Omari, who has held multiple leadership roles in various terrorist groups.

Many lawmakers believe if these men are allowed to leave Qatar, they will very likely return to the battlefield.

“It’s impossible for me to see how they don’t rejoin the fight in short order,” said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“In Congress, we spent a lot of time debating whether the Qataris were going to adequately keep an eye on them in the course of the 12 months,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “My point all along was that I’m more worried about month No. 13 than the first 12.”

At the time of their release, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Armed Services Committee, said all the men “have American blood on their hands and surely as night follows day they will return to the fight.”

The Obama administration, which celebrated Bergdahl’s release with a Rose Garden ceremony, is reportedly in talks with Qatar to try to extend the Taliban Five’s travel ban; but as the deadline approaches, no agreement has been announced.

Joe Kasper, spokesman for House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said his office has gotten “radio silence” from the administration when they ask about the issue.

“They have to be concerned with what happens to the five Taliban because they made every effort to portray the trade as a good deal,” Kasper wrote in an email to Fox News. “The nightmare scenario for the Administration is if any of these guys show up again within the global battlespace, be it in some kind of leadership position or just as messengers of threats or propaganda.”

At the time of the Taliban Five’s release, several lawmakers from both parties complained that the White House did not give a 30-day notice of the swap, which is required by law. The administration said they could not wait because Bergdahl’s life was in danger.

What do you think about the Bergdahl exchange? Did the Obama administration break the law? Share your thoughts below.  

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: O’Reilly Issues Scary Warning About Obama ‘Plunging The World Into…”

Bill O’Reilly said President Obama is “plunging the world into a very dark place” by not maximizing the influence of his power abroad.

During his “Talking Points Memo” at the top of The O’Reilly Factor Tuesday, O’Reilly criticized the 60-nation coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). “Outside of a few countries that are undertaking a few bombing missions, there is little sign the coalition is effective,” O’Reilly said. “Maybe Italy, Spain and Germany have noticed the millions of people trying to illegally cross into Europe from Africa and the Middle East.”

“Many of them are fleeing terrorism, much of it generated by ISIS,” he added.

O’Reilly pointed out that Secretary of State John Kerry recently met with Russian president Vladimir Putin, hashing out a deal that would relieve Russia of sanctions as long as they don’t seize any more land. The Fox News host nicknamed him ‘Vlad the Invader.”

“Putin of course will take whatever Kerry gives him, and then do whatever he wants knowing that America and Europe are too afraid to confront his illegal ambitions, too soft to stop his illegal activities,” O’Reilly said.

The host also said the Russian deal, coupled with China expanding territory in the Pacific, is a “perfect storm of weakness.”

Not only is the USA reluctant to use its power, but NATO and the other Western countries do not want to confront evil either. Thus, the evildoers are on the march.

“While it’s true we can no longer police the world with ground troops, we can use our economic and diplomatic power to hurt countries that violate international law,” continued O’Reilly. “We can also lead the world into confronting ISIS and the other barbarians in a meaningful way. It’s about will tactics and leadership. None of which is coming out of Washington.”

O’Reilly then directed his attention to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, highlighting what he thinks are some of her biggest vulnerabilities in foreign policy ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign. “If she points to the so-called Russian reset, knowledgeable folks will wince. If she points to the War on Terror, she is highlighting a disaster,” he said.

The host concluded by calling Obama “the most reluctant commander-in-chief this nation has ever had,” but said it was “somewhat understandable, as Mr. Obama comes from an ideology that usually sees American military might as a negative.”

“The far left in the USA historically have opposed using American power abroad,” O’Reilly explained.

And now after thousands of American military folks were killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the left is joined by some conservatives and independent Americans who believe we should stand down overseas. But by withholding American power abroad, the president is plunging the world into a very dark place.

When order collapses, so does civilized society and we are seeing that all over this planet. Next up, a phony nuke deal with Iran that will empower that villainous country.

God help the next president of the United States.

h/t: The Blaze

Are we losing our influence in the world? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth