Tag Archives: Barack Obama

The Obama Administration’s Huge Nuclear Concessions to Iran

On June 11, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report on a stunning new concession offered by the Obama administration to break a deadlock in the Iran nuclear talks.

The deadlock stems from Tehran’s refusal to permit inspections of military facilities or answer questions about past nuclear-weapons-related work (known as “possible military dimensions” or PMD in U.N.-speak). With the clock ticking down on a June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement, the refusal of Iranian leaders to budge on these issues has become a political problem for President Obama, who said in April that Iran has agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has said the nuclear agreement will allow “anytime, anywhere inspections of any and every Iranian facility.”

Several U.S. organizations, including the Center for Security Policy (my employer), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the bipartisan Iran Task Force, have made anytime, anyplace inspections and resolving PMD questions red lines for a nuclear agreement with Iran. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said late last month that France will not sign off on a nuclear deal if Tehran rules out inspections of military sites.

According to the MEMRI report, the Obama administration proposed the following to resolve the deadlock over inspections of Iranian military facilities, undeclared nuclear sites, and past nuclear-weapons-related work:

• The United States has proposed to close the International Atomic Energy Agency’s PMD dossier and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Instead, the IAEA would conduct token inspections of a handful of nuclear sites — including two military sites — and question several senior Iranian military officials.

• Inspections of Iranian nuclear sites after the token inspections would be limited to declared facilities.

• Undeclared and suspect nuclear-weapons sites would be monitored through intelligence means.

MEMRI, a well-regarded think tank in Washington, D.C., sourced its report to statements cited in the Iranian press from Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and head nuclear negotiator, and Hamid Baidinejad, another Iranian nuclear negotiator. Araghchi reportedly said the Iranian negotiating team agreed to the proposed U.S. concession, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Supreme Leader Khamenei and triggered harsh criticism of Iranian officials in the so-called pragmatic camp. Baidinejad claimed the Iranian negotiating team rejected the proposed U.S. concession but agreed to an American request to present it to Khamenei anyway, who rejected it outright.

MEMRI believes CIA director John Brennan was secretly dispatched to Israel in early June to convince Israeli officials (and EU officials via Israel) that intelligence monitoring of PMD-related sites was sufficient, and actual investigation of these sites could be waived. My guess is that Israeli officials reacted to Brennan’s presentation with laughter and derision.

This proposed U.S. concession is appalling, because it would allow Iran to shield military and undeclared sites from IAEA inspectors. Obviously, if Iran is engaged in nuclear-weapons work, the work is not being conducted at declared sites. Given the poor track record of U.S. intelligence agencies in discovering covert nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea, the idea that intelligence is an adequate replacement for inspections of military and suspect nuclear sites is absurd.

Iran agreed in late 2013 to resolve an IAEA list of PMD-related issues in twelve areas. Iran has resolved questions in only one of these and is refusing to address the rest. Resolving questions about past Iranian nuclear-weapons work is important to set a baseline for verification, since IAEA inspectors need to know what nuclear research Iran has been engaged in and where this work has been conducted. Closing the IAEA’s PMD dossier would seriously undermine efforts to verify a nuclear agreement and would be another instance of Iran getting a pass for cheating on international agreements.

I’ve written previously in NRO that in their desperation to get a nuclear deal with Iran, which they hope will bolster the legacy of the Obama presidency, Obama officials are pursuing a policy of containment of an Iranian nuclear bomb. President Obama has in effect decided to concede the nuclear bomb to Tehran. In such a context, the latest proposed Obama-administration concession to Iran makes sense. Since the nuclear agreement is all about the Obama legacy, and not about stopping or slowing Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, Obama officials will make almost any concession to Iran to get a deal. Iranian leaders know this and are holding out for further and more generous U.S. concessions.

Congress must put a stop to this madness. If a nuclear agreement is concluded with Iran, Congress must reject it on a bipartisan basis. Congress also must restore a responsible U.S. foreign policy on Iran by passing new sanctions requiring Iran to comply with all U.N. Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program.

House of Representatives to Vote on Bill to give President Sweeping Authority with Little Oversight

The House of Representatives is reportedly poised to vote on so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, also known as Fast-Track Authority), a bill recently passed by the Senate that would effectively reduce the Congress to a rubber-stamp on trade deals for the next five years and, most immediately, assure approval of the one President Obama has nearly finished negotiating with Asian nations: the TransPacific Partnership (TPP).  Senator Jeff Sessions has, characteristically, done what every legislator should do — he has performed a rigorous and critical analysis of the emerging “trade” accord and found it to be seriously defective.  A particularly useful critique can be found here (http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=955DBDEC-E383-4401-AC3C-4E5EE06E99D1)

In a column last week (http://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-re-founding-father-1433373010), Wall Street Journal editorial board member Daniel Henninger described the context in which Congress is considering this action — a pattern of abdications of its constitutional authorities that is functionally remaking our government.  While Mr. Henninger does not specifically cite TPA or TPP, they certainly fit the pattern, and make it effectively irreversible.  Indeed, adoption of Fast-Track Authority would virtually assure approval of what amounts to a sweeping, sovereignty-sapping charter for world government that is masquerading as a trade deal.  Consequently, In his Secure Freedom Minute (http://securefreedomminute.podbean.com/e/just-say-no-to-fast-track-for-obama/) today, Center President Frank Gaffney urges Congress to withhold Fast Track Authority from President Obama.

President Obama Says He Still Does Not Have a Plan to Deal with ISIS in Iraq

Yesterday, at the G-7 Summit in Germany, President Obama said this about his strategy to deal with the growing threat from ISIS in Iraq:

“When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon then I will share it with the American people.  We don’t yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis as well about how that recruitment takes place, how that training takes place.”

Remember that Mr. Obama also said he did not have a plan to deal with ISIS in August 2014.  In September 2014, he announced a new plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS in Iraq and Syria by providing military assistance to the Iraqi army and the Iraqi Kurds, conducting airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, and training moderate Syrian rebel fighters.

Nine months later, Mr Obama is admitting the obvious: he does not have a “complete strategy” to defeat ISIS in Iraq but is trying to shift the blame to the Iraqi government and the Pentagon.

As I wrote in a Fox News op-ed last month, I believe President Obama actually does have a strategy for Iraq and Syria.  It is to do as little as possible in these conflicts.  He has placed severe limits on U.S. military advisers and trainers – they are not allowed to deploy with Iraqi troops even in non-combat roles.  U.S. pilots have complained that they are barred from attacking many key targets with airstrikes. The number of airstrikes has been significantly limited.  The U.S. program to train Syrian rebels is far behind schedule.

Mr. Obama wants to be seen as a president who ended wars, not a president who got the United States into a new war. He therefore is doing as little as he can get away with to address the chaos in Iraq and Syria so he can hand this mess to the next president.

Expect more spin from the president and his advisers over the next 18 months on how Mr Obama’s strategy in Iraq and Syria is working and blaming others for setbacks.  As a result, also expect threats to global security to increase because our president has abdicated his responsibility as the Commander in Chief and the leader of the free world.

 

The Obama Admin’s Dangerous Legitimization of Uranium Enrichment

The most serious flaw in the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran concerns its decision to concede the “right” to enrich uranium. Under a final nuclear deal, Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium with thousands of centrifuges and develop more advanced centrifuges.

The United States has long resisted agreeing to uranium enrichment in bilateral agreements to share peaceful nuclear technology with friendly states.  The reason is because although uranium enrichment can be used for peaceful purposes, such as producing nuclear fuel rods or nuclear medicines, it is very easy to use this process to make nuclear weapons fuel.

At an April 16, 2015 Heritage Foundation panel, I discussed how Iran has failed to provide a convincing explanation for why it needs to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program.  You can watch my remarks on this issue HERE.

Gregory  Jones, a Senior Researcher with the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, also weighed in on this issue at the Heritage Foundation panel and said the Obama administration has severely weakened America’s nonproliferation policy by legitimizing uranium enrichment.  According to Jones, the nuclear deal with Iran that the Obama administration is seeking will make it difficult for the United States to deny uranium enrichment to other states in the future and will cause several Middle Eastern countries to start their own enrichment programs.  His remarks in the below video are worth watching.

Uruguay’s Gitmo Problem (ENG & ESP)

As the United States continues to empty Guantanamo Bay of all its residents, evidence is mounting that the current administration is being lackadaisical in the handling of these known terrorists operatives.

In December of last year, six detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay. Of these detainees, four were Syrians, one Palestinian, and one Tunisian. All men were captured during the early fighting in Afghanistan, and held known ties to al-Qaeda.

One of the main conditions for release from Guantanamo is monitoring by the host country; however, reports show that these terrorists have since been living with no restraints in Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo.

The House chairman on foreign affairs, , wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry in April criticizing the release of these detainees. In the letter, Chairman Royce challenged the legality of the transfer stating,

After a first-hand assessment by Committee staff, this transfer appears to be inconsistent with U.S. law, as Uruguay has not taken steps to mitigate the risk that these detainees pose to the United States, including the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo

As you know, prior to such a detainee release, the Secretary of Defense is required by law (P.L. 113-66) to determine that steps have been or will be taken to ‘substantially mitigate the risk’ of released individuals from again threatening the United States or United States’ persons or interests

Additionally, Chairman Royce points out that according to then Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, these individuals were accepted under “refugees status”, resulting in a situation where they could not legally be monitored. Chairman Royce continues,

Uruguayan legislators and officials reported that while the government of Uruguay agreed to accept the detainees per formal U.S. government request, the only way the transfers would be permissible under Uruguayan law was for the detainees to arrive in Uruguay as refugees

Thus, the administration facilitated Uruguayan access to the detainees while still in Guantanamo Bay to encourage them to sign formal petitions for refugee status in Uruguay. According to two Uruguayan senators with whom committee staff spoke, once they arrived in Uruguay as refugees, Uruguayan law prohibited Uruguayan officials from conducting monitoring, surveillance or imposing travel restrictions on the detainees

It seems as though the administration did not fulfill the needed legal requirements in releasing these individuals.

Surprisingly, this is not the first time the administration has skirted the law while dealing with the release of known terrorists. Last May, the Obama administration failed to notify congress within the legal timeframe before freeing five Taliban officials in exchange for the release of Bowe Bergdahl.

The importance of Guantanamo Bay cannot be stressed enough. In fact last February, former high-level military and civilian personnel signed a petition demanding the prison stay open and functioning at full capacity.

It is becoming evident that politics weighs more than common sense in our Nation’s capital.

La problema de Guantánamo en Uruguay

A medida que los Estados Unidos continúa vaciando la prisión de Guantánamo de todos sus habitantes, hay más evidencia que la actual administración está siendo vago en el manejo de estos terroristas.

En diciembre del año pasado, seis detenidos fueron liberados de Guantánamo. De estos detenidos, cuatro eran sirios, un palestino y un tunecino. Todos los hombres fueron capturados durante los primeros combates en Afganistán por tener vínculos conocidos con Al Qaeda.

Una de las principales condiciones para la liberación de Guantánamo es la supervisión por el país anfitrión; sin embargo, los informes muestran que estos terroristas ya han estado viviendo sin restricciones en la capital de Uruguay, Montevideo.

El líder de la Cámara de Asuntos Exteriores, Ed Royce, escribió al secretario de Estado, John Kerry, en abril criticando la liberación de estos detenidos. En la carta, Royce impugnó la legalidad de la transferencia indicando,

Después de una evaluación por parte del personal del Comité, esta transferencia parece ser incompatible con la legislación estadounidense. Uruguay no ha tomado medidas para mitigar el riesgo de que estos detenidos a los Estados Unidos, incluyendo la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Montevideo

Como usted sabe, antes de tal liberación de los detenidos, el Secretario de Defensa es requerido por la ley (PL 113-66) para determinar que medidas han sido o serán llevados a “mitigar sustancialmente el riesgo” de los individuos liberados de nuevo amenazar los Estados Unidos o personas estadounidenses o sus intereses

Además, el representante Royce señalo que de acuerdo con el ex presidente uruguayo, José Mujica, estos individuos fueron aceptados en “estado de los refugiados”, dando lugar a una situación en la que no podían legalmente ser monitoreados. Representante Royce continúa,

Legisladores y funcionarios uruguayos informaron que mientras que el gobierno de Uruguay aceptó a los detenidos por solicitud del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, la única forma en que las transferencias serían permisibles bajo la ley uruguaya fue para que los detenidos lleguen a Uruguay como refugiados

De este modo, la administración facilitó el acceso del Uruguay a los detenidos cuando aún estaba en la Bahía de Guantánamo para animarlos a firmar peticiones formales de la condición de refugiado en Uruguay. Según dos senadores uruguayos con quien habló el personal del comité, una vez que llegaron a Uruguay como refugiados, la legislación uruguaya prohibido funcionarios uruguayos de llevar a cabo el seguimiento, la vigilancia o la imposición de restricciones de viaje a los detenidos

Parece que el gobierno no cumplió con los requisitos legales necesarios en la liberación de estas personas.

Sorprendentemente, esta no es la primera vez que el gobierno ha eludido la ley en el trato de la liberación de los terroristas. El mayo pasado, el gobierno de Obama no notificó el Congreso dentro del plazo legal antes de liberar a cinco funcionarios talibanes a cambio de la liberación de Bowe Bergdahl.

La importancia de la Bahía de Guantánamo no se puede enfatizar suficiente. De hecho el pasado febrero, ex militares y civiles de alto nivel firmaron una petición exigiendo mantener la prisión abierta y funcionando a pleno rendimiento.

Cada vez es más evidente que la política pesa más que el sentido común en la capital de nuestra nación.

Parameters Emerge for Nuclear Deal with Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 countries (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) agreed this afternoon to the parameters of a deal intended to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While no agreement was actually signed and the parties have until June 30th to finalize the details, today was a noteworthy step in the process.

According to the U.S. State Department, Iran must reduce its number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to about 6,100, coincidentally the number of centrifuges Iran had when President Obama entered office. These centrifuges will be basic models, and Tehran will not be allowed to enrich with advanced centrifuges for ten years. Furthermore, Iran agreed to not enrich uranium above 3.67% for 15 years. Any excess enrichment infrastructure is supposed to be placed under IAEA supervision and only used to replace operating equipment.

The sole enrichment facility allowed will be Natanz, Iran’s largest uranium enrichment plant. Fordow, an underground enrichment site near the city of Qom, will be converted into a nuclear physics research center with centrifuges, where no fissile material is allowed. Arak, the heavy water reactor for producing plutonium, will be dismantled and turned into a nuclear research facility, with its current fuel sent out of the country.

The IAEA is supposed to have “regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” but most of the specifics regarding inspections and transparency, an essential part of any agreement, still need to be discussed. Iran has historically stonewalled inspectors, not giving them full access to its nuclear facilities.

In exchange for abiding by the aforementioned rules, Iran will receive significant sanctions relief. After Tehran takes “key nuclear-related steps,” the European Union and U.S. will suspend nuclear-related sanctions, allowing billions of dollars to flow back into Iran. Additionally, all U.N. Security Council resolutions will be lifted as Iran takes the necessary steps in this deal.

This understanding is far from final and may collapse before June 30th, but these parameters define the framework from which both sides will work. President Obama called this plan “historic” and said it will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, keeping Tehran one year away from that goal.

While a diplomatic outcome is desirable, there are fundamental issues with the framework that need to be addressed in the coming months. Two of these potentially fatal flaws relate to breakout time and a “sunset clause.”

First, the administration has made clear that its barometer for a good deal is keeping Iran one year away from acquiring a weapon, a shift from America’s traditional policy of no enrichment. If a one-year breakout period is the baseline, then it requires exceptionally frequent and intrusive IAEA inspections for the international community to know if Iran is abiding by an agreement. Without unannounced inspections at any time, there is no way of knowing Iran’s progress. Iran may not agree to such terms, however, and given its record, is likely not to abide by them.

Second, the framework confirms that any nuclear deal will contain a 15-year sunset clause, where, after adhering to the agreement for this period, Iran will thereafter be able to enrich large amounts of uranium with advanced centrifuges beyond the 3.67% limit. Even before this point, Iran will be permitted to retain a large nuclear infrastructure under this agreement, thus putting itself in a strong position to possibly dash towards a weapon after 15 years.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the framework does not address Iran’s nefarious non-nuclear activities including its ballistic missile program, role as the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and attempt to dominate the Middle East. Tehran has consistently defied the international community, and there is a fear that negotiating such a deal with it will legitimize Iran’s aggressive, destabilizing actions.

It is unclear how a final deal will look and what changes will occur from now until June 30th, but there are still major challenges in the interim. Because of the lack of clarity with inspections, a sunset clause, and nothing to deter Iran’s other dangerous activities, today’s framework raises serious questions that need to be addressed.

President Obama sends Diplomat in Wake of Nigerian Elections

The Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield has been commissioned by President Barack Obama to go to Nigeria to monitor the proceedings of the much anticipated Nigerian elections. According to a note made available to Journalists per the Office of the Spokesperson for the State Department, Mrs. Thomas-Greenfield will be leading the United States official diplomatic observations mission for the presidential election scheduled for tomorrow. The media note also hints that Mrs. Thomas-Greenfield will be holding high-level bilateral meetings with Nigerian officials while in Abuja.

“Nigeria’s first presidential election since the restoration of the civilian government could be a turning point for Africa” says John Campbell, senior fellow for African Policy Studies at the Council for Foreign Relations. Sensitivity surrounding these elections is for good reason. The Islamic affiliated terrorist group known as Boko Haram has been kidnapping citizens and committing heinous crimes for more than a decade. If the elections cause upheaval and chaos, Boko Haram will most certainly take advantage. From a civilian standpoint, whoever fits the bill to upend Boko Haram will be elected the new president.

On Saturday, Campbell outlines that a victorious candidate must have control of 25 percent of the votes in two-thirds of the thirty-six states plus the Federal Capital of Abuja along with the majority of the votes. The election will be watched closely, but all eyes will be on the elimination of Election Day corruption and violence.

Ambassador Greenfield symbolizes the first normal protocol surrounding the Nigerian election in what has otherwise been a series what seemed like diplomatic blunders that hampered U.S. ability to work with Nigeria in fighting Boko Haram.  Those seeming blunders were put into perspective when reporting by the Washington Free Beacon filled in the missing piece.  Namely, that U.S. policy toward Boko Haram and Nigeria were driven more by David Axelrod’s financial interests than John Kerry’s State Department.

Netanyahu to Remain in Office Despite Obama-Linked Efforts

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party won a surprising victory in yesterday’s elections over the Zionist Union headed by Isaac Herzog, despite the efforts of an anti-Netanyahu campaign linked to President Obama. Likud won 30 seats compared to 24 for the center-left Zionist Union, all but guaranteeing Netanyahu being given the first opportunity to form a ruling coalition.

It is no secret that the U.S.-Israel relationship has suffered recently and that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on many policy issues, including the Iranian nuclear program and the peace process of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The disagreement over Iran came to a head as Netanyahu spoke before Congress asserting that the Obama Administration’s negotiations with Tehran enhance the Mullahs’ path to nuclear weapons.

For his part in the peace process, Obama has repeatedly issued strong statements condemning Israeli settlements and calling for a return to 1967 borders. Netanyahu views at least some of the settlement areas as legitimate and considers the 1967 borders indefensible.

These highly visible policy clashes have led to the perception that the leaders have an acrimonious relationship, which has overshadowed the traditional American-Israel alliance.

Whether for personal or policy reasons, evidence has indicated that Obama-linked personnel directly participated in campaigning against Netanyahu. Jeremy Bird, deputy national campaign director for Obama’s 2008 election and national campaign director for the 2012 reelection, was actively campaigning for Herzog. Bird led a team of former Obama campaign operatives with him to help replace Netanyahu.

These Obama-linked individuals were part of the Israel-based Victory 15 Campaign, an organization attempting to replace the Israeli (Netanyahu) government. Victory 15 is a subsidiary of OneVoice Movement, a Washington-based group focusing on Israeli and Palestinian issues that was campaigning against Netanyahu. OneVoice received $350,000 from recent State Department grants, and this funding is under scrutiny.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has started a bipartisan investigation into the $350,000 for OneVoice and Victory 15, especially in light of their connection with the Israeli elections.

OneVoice is a 501(c)3 organization, giving it tax-exempt status. Therefore, the organization cannot legally campaign against Netanyahu. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-NY) wrote a letter in January saying the State Department funded Victory 15. The two men then sent a letter to the IRS earlier this month asking about OneVoice’s nonprofit status. The State Department denies that the funds had any relation to the Israeli election, but many disagree with this assertion.

These questionable incidences do not necessarily mean that Obama actively set up an anti-Netanyahu campaign apparatus, but the evidence does raises suspicions of the Obama Administration’s involvement.

Given the animosity between the Obama Administration and Netanyahu and the ties between Obama and anti-Netanyahu campaign efforts, it is reasonable to suspect the U.S. president had prior knowledge of the effort to unseat Netanyahu. If true, it would mean America intervened in the democratic election of a close ally, in order to achieve political ends.

While the bipartisan Senate investigation will need to do a thorough examination of the evidence in order to shed light on what actually occurred, there are already enough links between the White House and the Israeli elections to raise some eyebrows.

Obama’s Double Standard on Free Speech: It Depends on Who is Being Offended

In recent days, President Obama has spoken eloquently about protecting our freedom of speech. He has done so primarily by criticizing Sony Pictures for canceling in the face of cyber attacks and other threats from North Korea public access to a comic film called The Interview that makes that country’s dictator the butt of its jokes.

Welcome as his defense of our fundamental liberties are, they stand in stark contrast to his attitude towards those satirical and other examples of free speech that offend Islamic supremacists.

For example, at his press conference last week, Mr. Obama rightly declared, “We cannot have a society in which some dictators someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States because if somebody is able to intimidate us out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing once they see a documentary that they don’t like or news reports that they don’t like.”

Curiously, President Obama was not similarly concerned two years ago. Back then, though, the issue wasn’t a movie made by an American filmmaking studio poking fun at North Korea. It was a video by an American filmmaker that satirized Islam’s prophet Mohamed.

The President insisted long after it was known to be untrue that the video made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula precipitated the murderous jihadist attack in Benghazi. Citing America’s commitment to respect all faiths, he condemned Nakoula’s film, calling “natural” the protests that occurred “throughout the Muslim world” because of “the outrage over the video” whose “message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”

Presidential spokesman Jay Carney went even further. He repeatedly called the video “reprehensible,” “disgusting” and “offensive to Muslims.” And Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, described it as “an awful Internet video we had nothing to do with.”

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, Mr. Obama actually told the United Nations General Assembly that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The message could hardly be clearer: If American freedom of expression offends Muslims, it must be discouraged.

When it comes to slandering the North Korean dictator though, the President was where those of us who cherish our freedoms would want the putative leader of the Free World to be. Last Friday, he warned: “Imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”

So the question occurs: For the Obama administration, are there some people – notably, Islamic supremacists – whose “sensibilities” don’t “need to be offended”?

That certainly seemed to be the view of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, as part of something called the “Istanbul Process,” worked assiduously to accommodate the demands of shariah-adherent (and easily offended) Muslims advanced by the supranational proto-caliphate called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In fact, on July 15, 2011, Mrs. Clinton intoned during a meeting with the OIC and representatives of the European Union:

We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

In other words, if – to quote President Obama’s words – “producers, directors and others” don’t engage in self-censorship about jihad and other appalling attributes of Islamic supremacism, the Obama administration is prepared to use “peer pressure and shaming” to suppress them.

[The OIC’s campaign to suppress freedom of expression and the Obama administration’s acquiescence to it is the subject of a terrific documentary, “Silent Conquest.” It features comments from many of those of us vilified by Islamic supremacists and their sympathizers as “Islamophobes.” This film surely would be an example of a documentary that needs to be seen, not suppressed, not least because it offends precisely the sorts of folks whose sensibilities, as the President put it, “need to be offended.”]

Evidence of the successful application of this double-standard is not hard to find. For example, the Obama administration calls Nidal Hasan’s massacre at Fort Hood and the beheading of a grandmother in Oklahoma incidents of “workplace violence” and scarcely anyone in the mainstream press objects. Ditto with the President’s claim that the “Islamic State is not Islamic.” Ditto then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President John Brennan’s insistence that “we [do not] describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

At this writing, there is another instance of apparent self-censorship with respect to the coverage of Islamic supremacism that is playing out in real time. Somehow, in scrutinizing the social media postings of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, the man who assassinated two police officers in Brooklyn over the weekend, the legacy press seems to have overlooked an item Patrick Poole at PJMedia found on Brinsely’s his Facebook page: an image reproducing the Quran’s Sura 8:60. (ed.– Breitbart News has published a report on Brinsely’s social media presence). It reads:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Evidence that the cop-killer may not have been motivated simply by venomous attacks on law enforcement calling for the murder of police officers and officials pandering to race-baiters, but to jihadist sentiments that are about terror, not self-improvement, should actually be a central part of reporting on this weekend’s heinous murders. But not according to President Obama’s double-standard on freedom of expression.

Here’s the bottom line: Our liberties like freedom of speech are unalienable rights from our Creator. Neither foreign powers, our president nor self-censorship can be allowed to suppress them, ever.