RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Obama administration is prohibited by law from moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, but President Obama on Tuesday sent Congress his plan for doing just that.

Even before Obama spoke, members of Congress reacted negatively.

“The fact is, it is very hard to stop a president from doing something if he is willing to ignore the law and his oath,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Fox News Tuesday morning.

Issa said Obama’s plan to close the military prison in Cuba is not a surprise — he talked about doing it even before he became president.

“But the fact that he’s willing to do it in violation of specific law…(shows that) he has very little to lose, in his opinion. He doesn’t believe that the American people will impeach him, and with the death of Justice Scalia, he probably views that the Supreme Court might back him with a 4-4 decision.”

Issa noted that Obama himself signed the bill that included the provision barring transfers of Gitmo detainees to the United States. “But this is a president that doesn’t respect the law and the Constitution.”

Issa said there isn’t much Congress can do “in a timely fashion” if Obama ignores the law and orders the military prison closed. Congress’s recourse would be to go to court, and the courts are not likely to rule quickly.

Issa said that voiding the Guantanamo lease, which the United States holds in perpetuity, would be more complicated for the president to do. He could order the military to leave Guantanamo, but that places the burden on military leaders.

“I have to be quite candid,” Issa said. “It is the decision that U.S. military leaders have to make. Are they going to obey an unlawful order…to move people from Guantanamo? An unlawful order to close the base?”

Issa said he believes the military may push back on the president. “I can see flag officers resigning rather than obeying unlawful orders.”

Western states should legally permit immigrant communities to surgically “nick” young girls’ vaginas as an alternative to genital mutilation, a pair of US gynaecologists argued in a hotly-challenged paper Tuesday.
Such a “compromise” could allow groups to honour cultural or religious prescripts while saving millions of girls from invasive and disfiguring genital slashing practised in some African and Middle Eastern cultures, the two doctors stated in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
“We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable,” said Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York state.
“Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies”, which have outlawed such practices but host immigrants for whom it is part of their culture.
Efforts to enforce an outright ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) have often had the opposite effect — driving the practice underground and putting women at even greater risk, said the duo.
But many peers immediately dismissed the idea.

History and recent trends are on their side without question.

There has been a large volume of contradictory statements by Democrats and Republicans on nominating a successor to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

President Barack Obama has claimed that he is duty-bound to nominate a judge for the highest judicial court in the land, and that his nominee is entitled to an up-and down vote. Conversely, several Republicans have been arguing that tradition dictates that a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation for a Supreme Court nominee do not take place in an election year.

As it happens, none of these claims hold water.

Election year Supreme Court vacancies have been filled by Senate-approved nominees in all six occurrences since 1900. The President certainly has the right to put forward a Supreme Court nominee in his final year, but he has no obligation to do so. And the Senate is not duty-bound to confirm, or even vote upon, his nominee, election year or not.

President Obama’s push to obtain a vote on his eventual nominee also puts him at odds with a Democratic tradition of thwarting Republican judicial nominees.

In asserting that Republicans need to vote on his eventual nominee, President Obama has been compelled to publicly “regret” via his spokesman his own efforts, as senator from Illinois, to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination in 2005.

Similarly, Vice President Joe Biden must be regretting his public assertion in the 1992 election year (which can be seen here) that the then-Democratic-controlled Senate should refuse consideration, let alone a vote, on a hypothetical George H.W. Bush Supreme Court nominee before that year’s presidential elections. The fact that Mr. Biden was then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman makes it all the more difficult for Democrats to shrug off.

So what is the history regarding Supreme Court nominees?

A Marine veteran has filed a lawsuit after being banned from his daughter’s school for more than a year after he raised objections to the school’s pro-Islam curriculum.

John Kevin Wood is asking a judge to remove the ban so he can watch his daughter graduate from La Plata High School in Charles County, Maryland.

“She’s in the final semester of her senior year, and as it stands right now, she’s going to have to go through that life experience without her dad there,” said Kate Oliveri, a lawyer from the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center who is representing the Wood family.

In October 2014, Wood’s daughter showed him several assignments for her 11th grade World History class in which she was required to memorize the Five Pillars of Islam and to write and recite the shahada, the Muslim statement of faith that says “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

According to school papers submitted to federal court, the curriculum said that most Muslims’ faith is “stronger than the average Christian.”

Wood, who lost two friends in combat during Operation Desert Storm, said the school wasn’t just teaching Islam but was promoting it in a way that amounted to an assault on his family’s Christian faith.

Less than a week ago, French lawmakers voted to extend the state of emergency initiated in November after the Paris jihadist attacks that left 130 dead and 367 wounded. By law, the emergency status vests police with expanded powers to conduct raids, seize property, and detain persons without judicial oversight, much less trial.

It was impossible not to think of France this morning as President Obama once again agitated for the closing of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. It is an unkept promise to the hard Left from his 2008 campaign that the president has been working on since his first full day in office seven years ago.

The case has not gotten better with time, unless we factor in the extortionate tactics of the community organizer. Obama has released so many jihadists to other countries that the Gitmo prisoner population is down to 91 (according to the New York Times). Obama, in his brass knuckles way, is telling Congress, “Either shutter this place or I’ll spring even more committed terrorists to return to the jihad.” The threat is his most persuasive argument.

The rest of his case is as preposterous as it ever was. Or worse, actually. The president claims that our allies in the fight against “violent extremism” are dismayed by Gitmo’s continuing operation. Really? Does anyone really believe that the French are worried about Guantanamo Bay when they have suspended their own civil-liberties protections to deal with the prospect of more mass-murder attacks? How about other European countries grappling with the fallout of “migrants” overrunning their territories? Think Gitmo is at the top of their list?

RELATED: Closing Guantanamo Bay Will Only Empower Our Enemies

The most laughable claim Obama makes is that Gitmo drives terrorist recruitment. This has always been a specious assertion, made all the more remarkable now by Obama’s campaign to bring thousands of unvettable Syrian “migrants” into our country — on top of the hundreds of thousands of foreigners from Islamic countries who have come to the United States during Obama’s presidency. For the guy who is bringing the recruits here in droves to fret about recruitment is even more precious than is the urging of Gitmo’s closing as a cost-saving measure by the guy who has added $10 trillion to the national debt in just over seven years.

In any event, I’ve responded to the recruitment point several times, most recently after the San Bernardino attack in December:

[T]here are two things that drive terrorist recruitment. The first is Islamic supremacism. In a West ever more indifferent to religion and entranced by the smug assumption that our “values” are universal, the power of a conquest ideology cloaked in religion eludes us. But it seizes our enemies and burns like a fire inside them. While Obama sees America as something to apologize for, Islamists portray their jihad as the road to esteem in this life and bounty in the next. It is a heinous belief system, but belief in something always beats belief in nothing.

The second driver of terrorist recruitment is the perception that the jihadists are winning, the conviction that they will ultimately prevail. Osama bin Laden wooed young Muslims with the wisdom that people are always drawn to the strong horse and shun the weak one. While Islamic State “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi follows up each jihadist atrocity by seizing more territory and enslaving more subjects, the president of the United States follows each jihadist atrocity — Benghazi, Paris, and now San Bernardino — by releasing more jihadists from Gitmo.

It’s not Gitmo driving recruitment. It’s our president.

If you want a monument to the failure of American schools, just look around a Bernie Sanders rally. It will be full of millennials, the 83 million people born between the early 1980s and 2000s. Most of them have been educated in schools that abandoned basic skills and knowledge, and put in their place curricula designed to “improve” human nature in order to conform to progressive utopian ideals. So instead of informed citizens, we have today’s “tolerant,” “sensitive,” and “diverse” narcissists whose heads are uniformly filled with intolerant leftwing dogma and unexamined political orthodoxy.

Exhibit one is the enthusiasm for socialism on the part of many millennials. This affection for a failed ideology in turn explains their attraction to an antique hippie and self-proclaimed socialist whose only jobs his whole life have been on the public payroll in a state with fewer people than Fresno County. So no surprise that in New Hampshire 83% of the under-30 vote went for Sanders, in Iowa 84%, and in Nevada 82%. That electoral approval, of course, is predicated on massive ignorance of socialism’s historical reality. In a 2010 New York Times/CBS poll, only 16% of millennials knew that socialism means some degree of government ownership of the economy. But it’s not just millennials: 43% of Democrats––and 56% of Democratic primary voters–– also view socialism favorably. That’s why Hillary Clinton is furiously tacking left in the primaries.

Nor do millennials know that Bernie’s advice to “look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” ignores the fact that those countries have long been reforming their welfare states and liberalizing their economies, backing away from the failed dirigiste policies that excite the Berniacs. Denmark does have a generous welfare state, but high taxes on the middle class and a regressive Value Added Tax fund these benefits. This inconvenient truth contradicts Bernie’s claim that all his promised goodies can be paid for by punitively taxing “billionaires,” whose combined total wealth couldn’t pay for one year of the federal budget, let alone the trillions of dollars in unfunded social welfare liabilities.

But the flip side of this love of socialism is a strange hatred of capitalism, another consequence of the degeneration of our schools, which teach very little about the history and true nature of capitalism. So all that students know are what popular culture, movie actors, and progressives teach them with caricatures of capitalism as silly as Scrooge McDuck diving into piles of currency or pin-striped Mr. Moneybags lounging at Park Place.

Barack Obama announced Tuesday that he was finally fulfilling one of his foremost campaign promises and closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Usually the closing of a prison camp for enemy combatants signals the end of the war, and since Obama has never acknowledged that the U.S.’s defense against the global jihad is a war at all, it is fitting that he should end his presidency by closing the camp that so notoriously demonstrated otherwise. And besides, the jihadi leadership ranks need replenishing.

Certainly Obama has replenished them a great deal already. With as many as thirty percent of prisoners freed from Gitmo returning to the jihad, one would think that the Obama administration would pause and consider their plan very carefully before releasing more or transferring them to far less secure prisons inside the United States. That is, administration officials would pause and consider if they had any genuine concern for national security, but it is increasingly clear that they do not. After all, in January, al-Qaeda bomb expert Tariq Mahmoud Ahmed al-Sawah was released from Guantanamo.

What could possibly go wrong? What benefit could jihad terrorists possibly get from a bomb expert? And just last week, Fox News reported: “When Ibrahim al Qosi was released from Guantanamo Bay in 2012, a lawyer for the former Usama bin Laden aide said he looked forward to living a life of peace in his native Sudan. Three years later, Qosi has emerged as a prominent voice of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, appearing in a number of AQAP propaganda videos — including a 50-minute lecture calling for the takeover of Saudi Arabia.”

And on the same day that Obama announced his plan to close Gitmo, a former Gitmo inmate was arrested in Spain for recruiting for the Islamic State. The arrest epitomized just how much Obama’s plan is rooted in Leftist fantasy that would prefer to ignore the global jihad, rather than in reality.

Here’s another example of Obama’s failed immigration policy threatening the public. Statistics from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that almost 90,000 illegal aliens considered a threat are not deported and eventually are released.

Washington Examiner:

Internal ICE figures show that in fiscal 2015, the agency encountered 152,393 illegal immigrants labeled a criminal threat, mostly in jails, but charged 64,116. About another 88,000 were not processed for deportation, according to the Center for Immigration Studies’ Jessica Vaughan.

The numbers are even worse for those who ICE asks local police and sheriffs to detain but never collect.

Under Obama’s recently announced Priority Enforcement Program, officials work with local police to arrest and deport criminal immigrants. In reality, that amounts to a phone call from ICE requesting local authorities hold the suspect for 48 hours after they’re set to be freed.

But several sheriffs from around the country say that just 35-40 percent of those held are ever seized by ICE, even after they’ve been released.

Richard W. Stanek, sheriff of Hennepin County in Minneapolis, said he had 75 illegals ICE wanted, but the agency only picked up about 35 percent. “And these are people that they want,” he told theWashington Examiner.

Susan Benton, sheriff of Florida’s Highlands County, said “mine would be much much lower.” Worse, she added, many are seized and sent to a federal facility in Miami and immediately released and return to her county.

It’s become a huge issue for local police. Benton said she wants to help ICE and hold illegal immigrants longer, but can’t legally. Often the result is more crime from the suspect and questions about why her department’s jail frees them.

A big reason why ICE doesn’t deport these criminal aliens is that the immigration courts are swamped:

Kang has been in America long enough to raise two sons and run a family-owned doughnut shop in Irving. After years of worrying, he thinks he’s about to find out his fate. Things look promising.

But Sims sets a merit hearing for Dec. 6, 2017.

“The great political irony is that Mr. Obama is the main cause of his own Guantanamo failure. If he hadn’t let Islamic State rise in Syria and Iraq, if he hadn’t let Libya become another terror incubator, and if he hadn’t let al Qaeda make a comeback via multiple local franchises, the American people might feel more relaxed about closing the terror prison. As the tide of war keeps rising, Americans know they need it.”

The day after he was first sworn in, President Obama issued an executive order declaring that he would shut down the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba “no later than 1 year from the date of this order.” That was January 2009 in one of his first acts as President. Congress has since used its power of the purse to frustrate the President’s effort. So on Tuesday he said he’s going to try again in one of his last acts as President.

It’s not going to happen—at least not if Mr. Obama follows the law. Polls show the American people oppose closing Gitmo by about two to one, politicians in both parties oppose closing it, and the past seven years have taught that the camp plays an important role in keeping America safe.

One reason is because Americans have figured out that the alternative is bringing these terrorists to the mainland. It’s easy to call for Gitmo’s closure in the abstract. It’s harder to explain to voters why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other killers may soon move into a prison near you.

No doubt this explains why the Pentagon plan submitted to Congress on Tuesday is so vague on details—especially the names of the “appropriate site[s] in the continental United States” where the detainees would be sent. One likely destination would be the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, which explains why Democratic Senator Michael Bennet rejects Mr. Obama’s plan.

The great political irony is that Mr. Obama is the main cause of his own Guantanamo failure. If he hadn’t let Islamic State rise in Syria and Iraq, if he hadn’t let Libya become another terror incubator, and if he hadn’t let al Qaeda make a comeback via multiple local franchises, the American people might feel more relaxed about closing the terror prison. As the tide of war keeps rising, Americans know they need it. READ MORE AT SITE