WASHINGTON, September 13, 2014 — Now that the parents of murdered journalist Robert Foley have disclosed that they were approached by ISIS to arrange a ransom for the return of their son, we are gaining a better perspective on the hard-heartedness of our government. According to the Foleys, they shared emails detailing ISIS demands for the release of their son with agents of our government.
The photographer’s parents should not have done that. Since it is the policy of the U.S. not to negotiate with terrorists, the government said, the parents would be subject to prosecution and possible prison sentences if they were to accede to the ISIS demands.
Never mind that President Obama conducted illegal, clandestine talks at roughly the same time, that culminated in the trade of five terrorist masters for an American enlisted man.
But the feds are butting in. It may be American policy, porous as it is, but the federal government has to stand law on its head to keep parents from working to save their son’s life. Giving money to a terrorist group is contrary to the interests of the United States, but as many have pointed out, ISIS is already benefitting from American largesse in the form of American weapons. The ransom, compared to this huge transfer, is a drop in the bucket.
Speaking of liquids, ISIS is selling millions of dollars’ worth of oil on the black market daily. This low-priced oil cannot be traced; it may be filling Americans’ gas tanks as we speak. At the very least, low-priced black market oil competes with legitimately-sourced oil, forcing down the price overall. Maybe, using this logic, we should be thanking ISIS rather than fighting them?
But back to our government’s threats against the Foleys. John Foley voiced his frustration, based on his inability to help his son. “I’d rather be in a prison here, than have my son in a prison over there,” he told Fox News host Greta Van Sustern. He never got that chance, though just what other threats he received aren’t yet public.
What kind of government twists its policies so far to intimidate its citizens, when it cannot protect its citizens by following those policies? And what kind of government throws its own policies out the window when it’s politically expedient? Did the FBI threaten President Obama with prosecution if the president went contrary to policy? The president faced no action when he publicly and proudly broke the law. He faces no sanctions for trading U.S. assets without following explicit law that required him to inform Congress. Why is the president above the law, and why can he break laws, overtly and clearly, when citizens are threatened for maybe brushing up against an interpretation of the law?
Because, when we have a lawless president, no law applies to him. That is the very definition of a dictator.
The president disclosed our failed mission to the world because, a Pentagon spokesman said, “circumstances dictated that we do so.”
Certainly, no tactical circumstances dictated that disclosure. It was only the president’s feeling that he needed to say we had tried to “do something.” Now, we hear that ISIS has split up hostages among several groups, in different locations, further complicating any future rescue attempts.
Politics, as always with this administration, trumps the national interest and even the lives of Americans.
So, Obama is not just a political and personal narcissist. He’s a dictator; worse, he’s a stupid dictator. That’s trouble for America, and it’s proving fatal for Americans, from Border Patrol agents to photographers and journalists.
When will the law apply to President Obama? Can we wait until January of 2017, or will the people put pressure on the House to impeach, and on the Senate to remove this criminal from office?