Qaddafi did NOT have to Go, But….

Posted on January 7, 2016January 7, 2016 by Denise Simon

He did and there was a larger agenda underway between the UK and the USA. He was behaving, he was trying to keep al Qaida out and what is more he was fighting hard against the Muslim Brotherhood knowing it was festering and growing in power to over-take his own rule.

But but but…..Obama and Hillary are loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood. Well yes they are and Tony Blair was too until late last year and he finally got the memo and then issued a report on the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile several countries in the Middle East have formally declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, when during the early 2000’s in the United States with the Holyland Foundation trial, the Muslim Brotherhood was proven to be a terror organization.

Meanwhile, Qaddafi was aiding the U.S. intelligence community and was indeed behaving. Obama, Hillary and Blair all had different missions for Libya post Qaddafi. That did not work out well, and all the predictions of Qaddafi have in fact come to pass.

Fail….

Gaddafi warned Blair his ousting would ‘open door’ to jihadis

Transcripts of 2011 calls reveal Libyan dictator predicted extremists would use his departure to start war in Mediterranean

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi warned Tony Blair in two fraught phone conversations in 2011 that his removal from the Libyan leadership would open a space for al-Qaida to seize control of the country and even launch an invasion of Europe.

The transcripts of the conversations have been published with Blair’s agreement by the UK foreign affairs select committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the western air campaign that led to the ousting and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011.

In the two calls the former British prime minister pleaded with Gaddafi to stand aside or end the violence. The transcripts reveal the gulf in understanding between Gaddafi and the west over what was occurring in his country and the nature of the threat he was facing.

In the first call, at 11.15am on 25 February 2011, Gaddafi gave a warning in part borne out by future events: “They [jihadis] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

In the second call, at 3.25pm the same day, the Libyan leader said: “We are not fighting them, they are attacking us. I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in north Africa. Called the al-Qaida organisation in north Africa … The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.”

Gaddafi added: “I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification – and we shall fight them.”

Three weeks after the calls, a Nato-led coalition that included Britain began bombing raids that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. He was finally deposed in August and murdered by opponents of his regime in October.

At one point in the conversations Gaddafi urged Blair to go to Libya to see the lack of violence in Tripoli, and held the telephone to a TV screen so Blair could hear people voicing their support for Gaddafi in the streets.

Blair said he had decided to act as an intermediary due to the contact he had with Gaddafi when he was prime minister. Both Washington and London knew of his phone calls to Gaddafi, he said.

During the calls Blair suggested he could engineer a peaceful exit for Gaddafi if he agreed to leave. Referring to him as the leader, Blair also insisted there was no attempt to colonise Libya. Gaddafi said he had to defy colonisation, insisting: “There is nothing here. No fight, no bloodshed. Come see yourself.”

Blair urged Gaddafi to give him a phone number so he could contact him urgently, and beseeched him to “do something that allows the process to start, end the bloodshed, start a new constitution”.

He told Gaddafi that if he made the right statements, ended violence, and lowered the political temperature, it might be possible to get the US and the EU to hold back from interfering.

“If you have a safe place to go, you should go there because this will not end peacefully and there has to be a process of change; that process of change can be managed and we have to find a way of managing it,” Blair said. “The US and the EU are in a tough position right now and I need to take something back to them which ensures this ends peacefully. If people saw the leader stand aside people would be content with that. If this goes on for another day or two days, we will go past that point. I am saying this because I believe it deeply. If we cannot find a way out very quickly, we will be past the point of no return. If this does not happen very fast the people of Libya will make this very destructive.”

Blair ended the call by saying: “ I would like to offer a way out that is peaceful … keep the lines open.”

Commenting on the exchanges on Thursday, the foreign select committee chair, Crispin Blunt, said: “The transcripts supplied by Mr Blair provide a new insight into the private views of Colonel Gaddafi as his dictatorship began to crumble around him. The failure to follow Mr Blair’s calls to ‘keep the lines open’ and for these early conversations to initiate any peaceful compromise continue to reverberate.

“The committee will want to consider whether Gaddafi’s prophetic warning of the rise of extremist militant groups following the collapse of the regime was wrongly ignored because of Gaddafi’s otherwise delusional take on international affairs. The evidence that the committee has taken so far in this inquiry suggests that western policymakers were rather less perceptive than Gaddafi about the risks of intervention for both the Libyan people and the western interests.”

In one of the deadliest attacks since the fall of Gaddafi, dozens of people were killed on Thursday in an apparent suicide bombing at a police training centre in the Libyan town of Zliten.

Saudis and the DC Powerbrokers, Millions $$

Posted on January 7, 2016January 7, 2016 by Denise Simon

Ah, you have a call holding on line 5, insider information incoming for the next committee meeting or the next paragraph of legislation to be tucked into that bill.

Oh interesting mail here, so buy this stock at this strike price, hold it for 9 days and bail.

Hey Nancy, are you going to the Piper party in Georgetown, great see you there lots to discuss over martinis.

Harry, new nugget coming from K Street, make sure you say this on the Senate floor.

Podesta Group = John and Tony Podesta (John Podesta is Hillary’s campaign architect)

DLA Piper = Law Firm found in 30 countries and was a large contributor the re-election of Barack Obama and is the 5th largest donor to Hillary’s current presidential campaign

Targeted Victory = A digital strategy firm whose founder Zac Moffatt was the director for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign

Qorvis/MSL Group = A DC based Public Relations/Crisis Management organization that was hired by the FDA, Palestinian American Chamber of Commerce and even Yemen

Pillsbury Winthrop = Law firm that concentrates on mergers and acquisition for corporations and Middle East interests including Abu Dhabi and did sizeable work for arguing habeas corpus rights for Gitmo detainees

Hogan Lovells = Law firm with global offices with concentration in media, litigation and First Amendment law. Oldest law firm in DC, origins in the UK with early cases on treasury issues

Now you may begin to understand connections, donors, cocktail parties and who else is taking up the time daily of those in Congress. Now comes Saudi Arabia:

Washington’s Multi-Million-Dollar Saudi PR Machine

Public image isn’t something one can always control, but Saudi Arabia is spending millions of dollars on Washington lobbyists and PR firms to improve the Kingdom’s reputation in the West. The execution of Shiite leader Sheik Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, followed by an attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the Kingdom’s severing of diplomatic relations with Iran, would seem to offer few upsides for the Saudi government. Riyadh’s behavior comes across as a desperate Hail-Mary pass to isolate Iran at the expense of regional efforts to negotiate a de-escalation of the Syrian civil war and defeat the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Jim Lobe pointed out that Washington’s neoconservatives have jumped to Riyadh’s defense, apparently subscribing to the philosophy that “the enemy of my Iranian enemy is my friend.” But, as The New York Times editorial board wrote on Monday, “The execution of the popular Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 other prisoners on Saturday was about the worst way Saudi Arabia could have started what promises to be a grim and tumultuous year in the kingdom and across the Middle East.”

The Times may be stating the obvious, but Saudi Arabia pays millions of dollars per year to American public relations firms to paint the Kingdom in the most positive light. These firms have their work cut out for them. Indeed, that PR machine is doing all it can to spin the Saudis’ execution of a political dissident and blatant effort to fan sectarian tensions as somehow the fault of anyone but Saudi Arabia.

Defending the Kingdom

Fahad Nazer, a non-resident fellow at the Saudi- and UAE-funded Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, was quoted in Politico defending the executions, saying, “The primary message appears to be aimed at Saudi Arabia’s own militants, regardless of their sect.” And the Times published a quote from Saudi commentator Salman al-Ansari, who “accused Sheikh Nimr, who was in his mid-50s, of organizing a ‘terrorist network’ in Shiite areas in eastern Saudi Arabia and compared him to a Qaeda ideologue who sanctioned the killing of security forces.” The Podesta Group, a public relations firm hired by the Saudi government, provided Ansari.

So, how much money is in it for the PR professionals who are burning the midnight oil to put a positive spin on Saudi Arabia’s decision to start the year with a mass execution of 47 prisoners? Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings submitted by Saudi government contractors in Washington reveal an expensive PR operation.

Firms listed as “active foreign principals for Saudi Arabia” on the FARA website include: DLA Piper, Targeted Victory, Qorvis/MSLGroup, Pillsbury Winthrop, Hogan Lovells, and the Podesta Group. Qorvis/MSLGroup appears to the biggest recipient of Saudi money. Their FARA filings reveal what appears to be a $240,000 per month retainer with the Kingdom for services described as:

Drafted and/or distributed news releases, weekly newsletters, fact sheets and/or speeches to promote Saudi Arabia, its commitment towards counterterrorism, peace in the Middle East, and other issues pertinent to the Kingdom.

Qorvis/MSLGroup also reports it “created a Twitter account for a senior Saudi official,” and “managed a website on Operation Renewal of Hope,” Saudi Arabia’s 10-month-old military intervention in Yemen. Moreover, it farms out $55,000 per month of work from the Saudi account to Targeted Victory, LLC, a digital consulting firm.

The Podesta Group received $200,000 from the “The Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court” for approximately one month of “public relations services” from August to September. The Podesta Group, cited in the Times as working for the Saudi government, is listed as an “active” foreign agent for Saudi Arabia on the FARA website, suggesting that the contract is ongoing.

For services that include advising the Saudi government on “media reports and related public affairs developments” and undertaking “specific advocacy assignments with regard to litigation, legislative, regulatory, public policy or public affairs matters, and/or in other activities,” Hogan Lovells receives $60,000 per month in fees.

DLA Piper receives a fee of $50,000 per month for services including “[contacting] Members of Congress, congressional staff and Executive Branch officials in connection with strengthening the ability of the United States and Saudi Arabia to advance mutual national security interests.”

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP collects a fee of $15,000 per month for “legal and non-legal services to Saudi Arabia in conjunction with information gather on U.S. Middle East policy.”

Assuming that these contracts are ongoing, as the FARA site indicates, and the Targeted Victory LLC fees were already included in the Qorvis/MSLGroup fees, Saudi Arabia is spending $565,000 per month for its lobbying operations in Washington, not including expenses. That’s $6.78 million per year in fees for PR, lobbying, and legal representation in the U.S. capitol.

Who Else Benefits?

Saudi Arabia is certainly a prize catch for K Street firms looking for hefty monthly retainers from foreign clients. But the U.S. military-industrial complex rakes in the biggest profits from the country currently fanning the flames of sectarian conflict in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia is looking to complete a $1.29 billion purchase of U.S. weapons, in part to replenish bombs and missiles used in Yemen. Reuters reports that a $11.25 billion purchase of Lockheed Martin warships is also expected to move forward, according to “military and industry sources.” The Congressional Research Service reports that Saudi Arabia topped the list of arms transfer recipients among developing nations from 2007 to 2014 with $86 billion in agreements, giving US defense contractors ample incentive to lend their own lobbying and PR firepower to the Kingdom’s efforts to manage public opinion.

“The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria,” the Times editorial concluded, but that “cannot mean condoning actions that blatantly fan sectarian hatreds, undermine efforts at stabilizing the region and crudely violate human rights.”

Saudi Arabia’s extensive contracts with Washington’s biggest PR firms—and the additional PR help it gets from U.S. defense contractors—are designed to make those actions somehow palatable inside the Beltway. But in the end they will only make the White House’s efforts to navigate the Sunni-Shia divide all the more difficult.

Buckle up the POTUS at SOTU Address and Parolees

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

Who does a YouTube commercial about his last year as president?

Politico: President Barack Obama plugs his own State of the Union address in a video trailer the White House is releasing Wednesday afternoon as part of an effort to set expectations for the president’s speech next Tuesday, which unlike previous addresses won’t include a new legislative agenda.

Going into his final year as president, Obama plans to focus more on the big themes that have defined his presidency and eschew a laundry list of policy proposals His explanation: he’s got bigger things in mind than Congress, according to details shared with POLITICO.

“What I want to focus on in this State of the Union,” Obama says in the video the White House will release late Wednesday, is “not just the remarkable progress we’ve made, not just what I want to get done in the year ahead, but what we all need to do together in the years to come: The big things that will guarantee an even stronger, better, more prosperous America for our kids. That’s what’s on my mind.”

Standing in front of his desk in the Oval Office, Obama offers a broad preview of what he’ll say: where things were when he came in, and how much progress he’s led since.

Not mentioned: the Republican majorities in the House and Senate who would have stopped any legislative agenda from moving – especially in an election year- with the possible exceptions of the Trans Pacific Partnership and criminal justice reform.

In an email that will also be distributed on Wednesday, Obama chief-of-staff Denis McDonough echoes Obama’s more-optimistic-than-ever theme and lists some of what’s likely to be on Obama’s brag list: December’s budget agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, increased domestic oil production together with new environmental regulations, a peak in high school graduation rates and health insurance coverage, a drop in unemployment, crime and incarceration rates.

“What we have left to do is bigger than any one policy initiative or new bill in Congress. This is about who we are, where we’re headed, and what kind of country we want to be,” McDonough writes.

McDonough finishes with a plug for his new Twitter account, @Denis44, also inaugurated on Wednesday. His first tweet: “New Year’s Resolution: Join Twitter âœ“And just in time for @POTUS’ final State of the Union,” with a link to the Obama video.

Oh, one more thing and it is a big one.

Obama Admin Boosting Staff for Massive Criminal Pardon Effort

Experts: End of presidency bid could free up to 20,000 convicted criminals

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration is seeking to significantly boost the number of staffers in the Department of Justice’s pardon office, leading some to speculate that the president is getting set for an end-of-administration effort to grant clemency to a range of criminals.

The Justice Department recently posted on its website a job listing seeking 16 lawyers for new spots in its Office of the Pardon Attorney, which codifies petitions for clemency and makes recommendations to the attorney general for clemency.

The new lawyers will assist “the President in the exercise of executive clemency,” according to the job description.

The department’s move to beef up staff in the pardon office has prompted speculation that President Obama will pursue a final term effort to grant clemency to a range of criminals, particularly drug offenders.

The Justice Department has been working for more than a year now on a new clemency initiative that outside organizations predict could free up to 20,000 convicted inmates from federal prisons. The effort has been described in news reports as “an unprecedented use of clemency power.”

The department says the new pardon office lawyers will work on this initiative and focus only on non-violent offenders.

“The Justice Department announced a new clemency initiative to encourage appropriate candidates to petition for executive clemency in order to have their sentences commuted by the President,” the job listing states. “The Initiative invites petitions for commutation of sentence from non-violent inmates who are serving a federal sentence, who by operation of law, likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense today.”

Thus far, “thousands of inmates” have filed petitions to have their sentences commuted and “more are likely to do so,” according to the Justice Department. “Evaluating these petitions for recommendations to the President is a high priority for the Justice Department.”

The attorneys will “review and evaluate petitions” submitted by prisoners and confer with Justice Department officials, as well as other administration agencies, to decide who meets the criteria to receive a pardon, according to the job description.

Government oversight organizations and experts are questioning the administration about the possibility that it could release those in the country illegally or those who have committed major drug offenses.

One congressional source familiar with the effort criticized Obama for abusing the presidential right to grant pardons.

“This fits perfectly with the administration’s two-term agenda of eroding the rule of law in America,” the source told the Washington Free Beacon. “While the president certainly has the constitutional power to pardon, I shudder thinking about how he plans to use it, given his determination to release dangerous criminals.”

Judicial Watch, a legal organization that has sought disclosure on the issue, petitioned the Justice Department in July through a Freedom of Information Act request to release all records discussing the clemency project.

Judicial Watch has predicted that the major clemency initiative “would empower President Obama to grant mass clemency to as many as 20,000 convicted felons now serving time for drug-related sentences.”

The clemency program is just one “part of the Obama administration’s effort to end alleged racial discrimination in drug-related sentences,” according to Judicial Watch.

Republican lawmakers also have expressed concern over the initiative.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, accused Obama at the time of “abusing his authority” under the Constitution to pardon prisoners.

“This is an example of the imperial presidency at its worst, and the American people have a right to know who is behind his errant usurpation of power,” Fitton said in a statement at the time.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for more information on the initiative.

Federal Prisons, Incubation Centers for Militant Islam

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

Mandatory sentencing is a topic that the White House is manipulating with Judges across the country using the Justice Department to do it. This takes away sentencing that have been rendered and Obama lets prisoners out before the sentence is complete. The reason is prison over-crowding. While that is the case, Districts Attorneys even reduce charges all the time. Result is there are few consequences for violent criminal acts. What is worse, is what actually goes on in prison and who is at the core of radicalizing prisoners. It is important to know Islamic organizations in America have postured themselves to be the source of religious training and sessions with inmates. Then they later have their sentences commuted or get out early and the rest is a growing threat to our homeland.

Ripe for radicalization: Federal prisons ‘breeding ground’ for terrorists, say experts

FNC: America’s federal prisons have become a “breeding ground” for radical Islam, warn critics, who say imprisoned terrorists are more likely to spread their beliefs than renounce them.

As law enforcement authorities lock up more home-grown terrorists, experts are warning the success could turn sour if jailhouse jihadists are allowed to infect fellow inmates. Prisons have long been criticized for a culture that can make some inmates more dangerous than when they entered, but the possibility that typical felons could become lone wolf terrorists upon earning parole is a disturbing new wrinkle.

“Over the years, our Federal prisons have become a breeding ground for radicalization.”

– Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn.

“If we continue to downplay the threat, we do so at our own peril,” said Patrick Dunleavy, author of “The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism’s Prison Connection.”

The aggressive recruitment of Americans by ISIS has resulted in a spike in domestic terror-related convictions. Some 71 people are imprisoned in the U.S. on ISIS-related charges, including 56 individuals arrested in 2015, the most terrorism arrests in a single year since September 2001, according to George Washington University’s Program on Extremism.

(Alton Nolen, who is accused of beheading a former co-worker at a food processing plant in Oklahoma, is believed to have converted to Islam while doing time.)

In addition, the FBI has said it is currently conducting more than 900 investigations into ISIS-linked radicalization, including cases in all 50 states.

There are hundreds more federal inmates serving time for terrorist activities related to other terror groups. An estimated 100 are scheduled for release in the next five years, according to the Congressional Research Service. Still more terror suspects could be transferred to U.S. prisons from Guantanamo Bay in the coming months.

Terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay could soon be transferred to U.S. prisons, where critics say they could influence other inmates. (Associated Press)

“We have never been faced with such a large number of terror inmates before,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., during a recent Homeland Security Committee hearing on countering violent extremism in prison.

King and others say the federal Bureau of Prisons must do a better job of monitoring and, if necessary, isolating inmates who could radicalize others behind bars.

Dunleavy, a retired deputy inspector in the criminal intelligence unit of the New York Department of Correctional Services, said criminals have been radicalized in prisons for years, and predicted it will only get worse. He cited Chicago gang member Jose Padilla, who converted to radical Islam while doing time in jail in the 1980s, and was later accused of plotting to set off a radiological “dirty bomb” in the U.S. He is now serving a 21-year sentence for conspiring to commit acts of terror overseas.

More recently, ex-convict Alton Nolen was arrested in a September, 2014 attack at his former place of employment, a food processing plant in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore. Nolen, who is awaiting trial, allegedly beheaded a 54-year-old female worker while yelling Islamic slogans. Dunleavy believes Nolen converted to Islam while serving time in an Oklahoma prison after attacking a police officer in 2010.

In between Padilla and Nolen, Dunleavy says there were “scores of others” who became radicalized in state and federal prisons, either by listening to fellow inmates or hearing sermons on contraband devices smuggled into prisons and shared.

Kevin James, who while serving time at Sacramento’s New Folsom Prison on robbery charges in 2004, founded his own jihadist movement and recruited fellow inmate Levar Washington to join his cause. Upon Washington’s release in 2005, he plotted to attack Los Angeles-area synagogues, the Israeli Consulate, the Los Angeles airport and U.S. military recruiting offices. James, remained in federal prison, where some critics fear he could be radicalizing more inmates to his cause.

Tens of thousands of federal prison inmates have converted to Islam while serving time, and many others have found other religions. Most do not subscribe to a violent interpretation of the faith, but it takes only a few to create a threat, according to Mark Hamm, a professor at Indiana State University who specializes in the field of prison radicalization.

“It is not the sheer number of prisoners following extremist interpretations of religious doctrines that poses a threat,” Hamm told FoxNews.com. “Rather, it is the potential for the single individual to become radicalized.”

Estimates of the number of terrorists behind bars could be too low because some could be serving time on weapons-related crimes, rather than terror-related. Those suspects are especially dangerous, Dunleavy said, because their involvement in terror plots may not be disclosed to prison officials who might otherwise be able to monitor them.

As far back as 2010, well before ISIS was formed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a report that identified three dozen U.S. citizens who had converted to Islam while in U.S. prisons, and then traveled to Yemen to train at Al Qaeda camps upon being released.

According to the FBI, radicalized inmates are of concern for a number of reasons, including the possibility they could urge other prisoners to attend radical mosques upon their release from prison; could pose a risk to prison security inciting violence; and could pass on skills used in terrorism activities.

King, who has had several hearings on Islamic radicalization, said lapses in how prisoners are monitored and how religious service providers are vetted continue despite numerous oversight reports.

In June, the federal Bureau of Prisons disclosed in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that it failed to complete a background check on a religious services contractor who had a well-documented past of advocating violence against critics of Islamic extremism.

While monitoring prisoners is potentially more difficult, lawmakers believe the government could at least minimize the risk of radical clerics being invited into prisons to proselytize – and radicalize.

“Over the years, our Federal prisons have become a breeding ground for radicalization,” said Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., who introduced a measure that would compel the BOP to study prison radicalization and beef up background checks for clergy and other workers allowed access to inmates. “By allowing volunteers to enter the system without first having to undergo a comprehensive background check, some of the most vulnerable members of society have become susceptible to radicalization.”

Obama Released Felons, They Killed with Illegal Guns

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obama’s America: Lock up Guns, Release Violent Gun Felons

CR, Horowitz: Isn’t it sadly ironic that the man who wants to flood the country with Islamic refugees and criminal aliens is concerned about expanded background checks on law abiding gun owners?

As Mark Levin pointed out last night, Obama has protected sanctuary cities and dangerous criminals, yet claims to be concerned about the public safety threats of an inanimate object. In addition, one of the critical agenda items for this president’s final year is the release of thousands of violent drug and firearms felons from federal prison. Among some of the recent prison releases were criminals convicted for armed robbery and firearms violations.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that will help promote Obama’s dangerous and hypocritical agenda by retroactively releasing a number of felons who committed crimes with firearms and had a relatively long rap sheet.

What happens when you release hardened criminals, especially from federal prison?

On November 2, U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross (Obama appointee) gave just one-year of probation to a defendant who admitted buying a gun for her felon boyfriend in a straw purchase, which he later used to shoot and kill Omaha Police Officer Kerrie Orozco.

Consider the case of Raleigh Sizemore, who recently murdered Richmond, Kentucky police officer Daniel Ellis, by shooting him in the head in the course of attempting to rob a gas station. Prior to this, Ellis had been convicted of operating a meth lab—which caught fire—and criminal mischief, and was sentenced to 10 years but made parole in April of this year, after serving just over three years. A week before he killed Officer Ellis, a warrant was issued for his arrest for violating his parole. This is exactly the type of person Obama and some Republicans want to release with more regularity.

The appalling hypocrisy of Obama as it relates to violent criminals juxtaposed to peaceful gun owners is best illustrated by a narrative the president himself used in his speech today. In the irony of all ironies, Obama invoked the act of Zaevion Dobson, a high school football player in Tennessee who shielded three girls from death with his own body during a drive-by shooting, to exhort Congress into passing gun control.

So who were the shooters in the Dobson case?

Brandon Perry had a couple of minor drug charges, along with a charge for “unlawful possession of a weapon” and for “alteration of distinguishing numbers.” He was back on the streets in no time and soon after killed Zaevion Dobson in cold blood. He himself was killed later that night in retaliation for the murder.

While Obama is busy violating separation of powers to impose more laws on peaceful gun owners, he is releasing the very sort of violent gun felons who killed Dobson

Perry’s accomplice in the Dobson murder, Christopher Bassett, was arrested along with two others a year prior to the shooting when police stopped his car for a busted taillight. He got out of the car and ran, as did one other passenger. They were both caught, and the police found three bags of marijuana and a digital scale in the car and on the suspects. They also seized “a small amount of white pills.” Bassett was let out on probation and was a part of the murder on that fateful night in December.

Brandon Perry and Christopher Bassett are exactly the sort of “low level” criminals, charged with drug and firearms violations, that Obama and congressional Republicans want to release from prison. But these people barely measure up to the profile of those Obama is releasing, and yet they still went on to commit murder. These two kids were never placed in the federal system. As I’ve noted many times, you have to be a big time drug dealer in order to actually serve hard time in a federal prison. Furthermore, it is these types of violent criminals, who commit many of their crimes as juveniles, that Obama and the Senate bill would retroactively release.

Hence, while Obama is busy violating separation of powers to impose more laws on peaceful gun owners, he is releasing the very sort of violent gun felons who killed Dobson, the very hero with which Obama used to promote this political agenda.

Only a coward would focus on the inanimate object, while ignoring the people who have used those objects to harm others. Yet, this powerful juxtaposition sums up Obama’s America and the moral bankruptcy of modern day liberalism.