"You're like, f**k this." The Obama/Clinton Policies in Syria Aren't a Failure, They're a Fraud

Tweet

Who are these guys, again?

I assume one of the reasons the Trump/Pence campaign isn't talking about this is because many Republicans themselves bought into the fraud and were even partly responsible for it, quickly identifying Assad as the primary villain in Syria and then continuing to double down on that beyond all reason.

From SOFREP News by way of Consortiumnews and Creeping Sharia:

US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria (Jack Murphy, SOFREP News):

“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, 'Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’” 

“I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added. A second Special Forces soldier commented that one Syrian militia they had trained recently crossed the border from Jordan on what had been pitched as a large-scale shaping operation that would change the course of the war. Watching the battle on a monitor while a drone flew overhead, “We literally watched them, with 30 guys in their force, run away from three or four ISIS guys.” 

How the US Armed-up Syrian Jihadists ("Alistair Crooke", Consortiumnews): 

In a detailed report, US Special Forces Sabotage White House Policy gone Disastrously Wrong with Covert Ops in Syria, Jack Murphy, himself a former Green Beret (U.S. Special Forces), recounts a former CIA officer having told him how the “the Syria covert action program is [CIA Director John] Brennan’s baby …Brennan was the one who breathed life into the Syrian Task Force … John Brennan loved that regime-change bullshit.” 

Murphy states bluntly: 

“distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra. … 

“The fact that the FSA simply passed American-made weaponry off to al-Nusra is also unsurprising considering that the CIA’s vetting process of militias in Syria is lacklustre, consisting of little more than running traces in old databases. These traces rely on knowing the individuals’ real names in the first place, and assume that they were even fighting-age males when the data was collected by CTC [Counterterrorism Centre] years prior.” 

Nor, confirms Murphy, was vetting any better with the 5th Special Forces operating out of Turkey: 

“[It consisted of] a database check and an interview. The rebels know how to sell themselves to the Americans during such interviews, but they still let things slip occasionally. ‘I don’t understand why people don’t like al-Nusra,’ one rebel told the American soldiers. Many had sympathies with the terrorist groups such as Nusra and ISIS.” 

Others simply were not fit to be soldiers. “They don’t want to be warriors. They are all cowards. That is the moderate rebel,” a Green Beret told Murphy, who adds: 

“Pallets of weapons and rows of trucks delivered to Turkey for American-sponsored rebel groups simply sit and collect dust because of disputes over title authorities [i.e. Presidential authorities] and funding sources, while authorization to conduct training for the militias is turned on and off at a whim. One day they will be told to train, the next day not to, and the day after only to train senior leaders. Some Green Berets believe that this hesitation comes from the White House getting wind that most of the militia members are affiliated with Nusra and other extremist groups.” 

Murphy writes: 

“While the games continue on, morale sinks for the Special Forces men in Turkey. Often disguised in Turkish military uniform, one of the Green Berets described his job as, ‘Sitting in the back room, drinking chai while watching the Turks train future terrorists’ … 

“Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, ‘A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,’ a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, ‘A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.’” 

Hangin' With the Butcher

Tweet

Along with Ernesto "Che" Guevara and his brother Fidel, Raul Castro directly participated in the executions of many hundred "enemies of the revolution" (Raul is the one tying the blindfold on) and was also responsible for ordering or signing off on the murders of thousands more. Some were killed without trial. Others were given trials that lasted minutes. Mercifully, some were allowed Last Rites.

Obama Ups the Ante on that Pope Video: In His Pocket He Carries a Rosary, A Buddha, a Hindu Monkey God and a Lucky Poker Chip!

Tweet

Barack Obama and Ingrid Nilsen. Ms. Nilsen is seven years old.

He also carries a Coptic cross.

Note the absence of any Muslim swag.

What's in his other pocket?

From Breitbart:

President Barack Obama today showed off the gift items that he says he carries in his pocket. 

Obama showed the items during an interview with YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen, today at the White House, saying they were given to him by people he has met during his political career. 

“I carry these around all the time,.” he said. “I’m not that superstitious so it’s not like I think necessarily I have to have them on me at all times,” he explained. 

”But it does remind me of all the different people that I’ve met along the way and how much they’ve invested in me.” 

He showed Nilsen a rosary he received from Pope Francis, saying that he “admired” the pontiff. He explained that he enjoyed carrying the rosary because it helped him “think about peace and promoting understanding and ethical behavior.”

Obama also showed off a little Buddha statue that he received from a Buddhist monk.

He also showed off a statue of the Hindu “monkey god” Hanuman.

And A Coptic Cross from Ethiopia.

He also showed her a metal “lucky poker chip” that he said he received from a biker with “handlebar mustache” and “a buncha tats.”

Happy Chanukah! After Lighting White House Menorah, Bizarre ObamaRabbi Invokes Allah, Demands Justice For Palestinians

Tweet

Radical Chick

Well, personally I think this is one Rabbi who's angling for a FrancisChurch Archbishopric.

From Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage:

Obama's Chanukah parties have had issues in the past. But this time it teetered over into full-blown violently offensive territory. Obama's own remarks were boilerplate inoffensive stuff. Israel's President Rivlin, a political hack who desperately sucks up to the media, was equally insipid. 

But the White House chose Susan Talve to light the Menorah. Talve is a member of the anti-Israel group T'ruah which is currently promoting assorted "soft BDS" programs. She's also a Ferguson activist. Her behavior was deeply insulting to the religious Jewish community and made it clear that the White House was determined to hijack even a Chanukah party to promote an anti-Jewish agenda. 

So the general conviviality of the Chanukah party was disrupted by a crazed rant from Susan Talve in which she seemed determined to jam as many leftist talking points as possible in her limited time. Instead of talking about Chanukah, Talve blathered on about getting, "guns off our streets" and to "clean up the fires of toxic nuclear waste". 

Talve screeched, "I stand here with my fierce family of clergy and black lives matter activists who took to the streets of Ferguson".

Having celebrated the race riots which destroyed a community, she pivoted to Syrian Muslim migrants. Chanukah is a celebration of the Maccabees defeating a Syrian occupation, but Talve may not even know that. Radical clergy tend to be light on the religion and heavy on the social justice. 

Instead she rambled on about how the "gates of this nation would stay open for all immigrants and all refugees". 

Then, not satisfied with having made a disgrace of the Chanukah ceremony, Susan Talve declared, "I stand here to light these lights to say no the darkness of Islamophobia and Homophobia and Transphobia." 

Talve babbled about insuring "justice for Palestinians" and began gleefully chanting, "Ins'Allah, Ins'Allah". Or "Allah Willing". 

I don't recall Susan Talve mentioning G-d or a word of Jewish scripture. Indeed she spent more time talking about Muslims than about anything in Judaism. And yet that's typical for Social justice clergy who have no organic ties to Judaism. 

It's bad enough that Obama insists on pursuing anti-Israel policies, but the Susan Talve appearance was just gratuitously insulting to the Jewish community.

Obama Declares Muslim-Majority Malaysia an Example of Tolerance: In 6 out of 13 States, Apostasy From Islam is Punishable by Jail, Flogging or Death

Tweet

"As-salamu alaykum. I wish Michelle would wear one of those."

Two days ago, speaking in the capital of Kuala Lumpur, President Barack Hussain Obama said:

Malaysia, like Indonesia, is a Muslim-majority country that represents tolerance and peace and as a consequence, its voice is critical in the debates taking place internationally around terrorism especially to fight ISIS.

Here's some background:

Malaysia is a federation composed of thirteen states and three territories. Each state has partial, though not complete judicial autonomy. And to a great extent differences between states breakdown along ethnic and religious lines. The majority (60%) of the country is Muslim with most of the remainder Buddhist, Hindu and Christian.

Malaysia is arguably the most moderate and even tolerant majority-Muslim country in the world—tolerance here defined as a combination of social mores and government laws. In many ways, it's a lovely place, with a vibrant culture and economy to a large extent driven by the non-Muslim Chinese in the south.

In much of the country, multiple religions do live relatively peaceably side by side, and Christians are given a fair amount of room (especially compared with other Muslim countries) to practice their faith. 

If I had to live in a majority-Muslim country, it would probably be Malaysia.

But unfortunately that sort of proves a point about contemporary Islam. Even in this most livable of majority Muslim countries, approximately half the states with more than half of the population have laws making it illegal to leave the Muslim religion (leaving another religion for Islam is fine and encouraged) with punishments on the books that include caning, prison and even death. The national government has the right to review extreme cases, and I'm not aware of any actual recent death sentences for apostasy. But the practice of forcibly confining apostates to "rehabilitation" centers is often used.

Malaysia is tolerant if compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, but measured against any Christian or liberal secular standard, it is a tyranny, at least where religion is concerned.

And also where sexuality is concerned—measured against the Western liberal standard. In Malaysia, the leader of the political opposition has been arrested three times on the charge of sodomy and has served four years in prison. He currently resides there.

Let me repeat that: the leader of the Malaysian political opposition is currently in jail for allegedly committing a homosexual act.

I have no idea whether or not the politican in question, Anwar Ibrahim is actually gay. He does have a wife and six kids, which is a higher total than 99% of the heterosexual couples that I know. His supporters claim that the accusations are false and that the accusations are largely political. Since he happens to be the leader of the political opposition, this is of course plausible. 

Malaysia is a Muslim-majority country that represents tolerance.

Obama criticizes American citizens for being against gay marriage but apparently thinks it is just peachy when Muslim countries imprison gays (or alleged gays)—especially if they are political rivals. Oh, he doesn't? Then why didn't he say it?

Obama is in favor of religious freedom unless it's for Muslim countries. Then he thinks beheading apostates is peachy. He doesn't? Then why didn't he say it?

And don't claim it's a matter of diplomacy. Ask Kenya.

We all know that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and collaborator (he's not a Muslim himself but a collaborator with the agenda of Islam). And so, by now, we expect him to praise all things Islam and to follow a double-standard.

But in fairness, many others in the West are guilty of holding Islam to low standards. Converting from Islam is illegal in only 6 of 13 states? Punishable by death in only two? Eureka! Muslim tolerance!

Tragically however, while there is some liberalism in Malaysia and some other majority-Muslim countries, the trend is currently in the other direction. Turkey is an obvious example of this.

There have always been islands of liberalism and tolerance in Islamic societies. People will be people after all. But they are the exception not the rule, and historically they were inspired by or created by Islam's non-Muslim subjects or pressure from the outside. Imagine what Malaysia would be like if surrounded by other Muslim countries.

If you are in favor of tolerance and freedom, you cannot be in favor of Islam.

He Won First Prize!

Tweet

This is today's headline photo on Pewsitter.

I guess it's what you get after a few elderly "caretaker" popes. The man pushing him is a member of the Swiss Guard.

I didn't put this up to be anti-Obama or anti-Pope or anti-Halloween or anything. Actually, I think it's cute. And as a friend mentioned, Obama looks like he's genuinely enjoying himself.

However, note the red shoes...

Obama to be Greeted by 5,000 Nude Kenyans

Tweet

I'm happy so many of you are glad to see me

This is from the It's a Strange World Department. Of course, it could all be (later edit: probably is) a put-on or publicity stunt by the "little known" Republican Liberty party (emphases mine):

Kenya: Nude Protest Against Homosexuality Awaits Barack Obama Next Week 

By Nancy Agutu (The Star, AllAfrica Global Media) 

A little-known party has sought permission to show US President Barack Obama the differences between a man and a woman through a nude protest. 

The peaceful demonstration against homosexuality will begin at 10 am at the Freedom Corner, on July 22 and 23, said Republican Liberty party leader Vincent Kidala. 

"The procession shall be carried out by approximately 5,000 totally naked men and women to protest over Obama's open and aggressive support for homosexuality," Kidala said in a letter to the county commander on Monday. 

"In fact our party has a network of prostitutes in Nairobi, Nakuru and other counties. This is where we shall get all these people whose number we expect to increase," he told the Star on phone. 

He said the prostitutes agreed to participate free of charge since they will lose customers if homosexuality is legalized.

Re: "our party has a network of prostitutes." Well, don't they all?

Re: "the prostitutes agreed to participate free of charge since they will lose customers if homosexuality is legalized."  Let's hear it for family values.

The letter also claims:

“The party’s main objective is for (Obama) to understand the difference between a man and a woman."

I'm not going to comment on this (beyond the above). I'm just not. This is partly because there are a few things about the above fringe party that are, shall we say, not funny. And I'm not keen, for the purpose of this particular post, on discussing, say, gay marriage or related issues.

I'm more interested in imagining what President Obama would say upon opening the door of his plane and discovering 5,000 waiting naked prostitutes (assume the airport let them gather on the tarmac):

No, no, I'm Obama. You're thinking of Bill Clinton.

Obama Promises to Defeat ISIS by Offering More Attractive Vision

Tweet

I wonder when they'll start to notice I'm stalling?

Oh, come on man, what could be more attractive than having four-wives, twelve sex-slave concubines, burning people alive in cages and taking photos of your six-year old son waving around severed heads?

But I digress.

President Obama's remarks this afternoon on his plan to defeat ISIS were, of course, cringeworthy. Here is the official transcript:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort Islam and its victims are mostly Muslims. 

We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people.

I've broken this into six points:

1. Undertake token and minor military stuff of some sort.
2. Introduce ISIS fighters, potential ISIS fighters and current and potential ISIS collaborators to a much more attractive and compelling vision than the perversion of Islam that currently occupies their enthusiasm.
3. Beef up our online presence.
4. Say over and over again that we are not at war and will never be at war with Islam.
5. Partner with Muslim communities here and abroad.
6. Focus on youth education.

Though it may be written with a slightly snarky edge, I think the above is a perfectly fair summary of Obama's "plan". It is quite honestly not worth my time or anyone else's time to explicitly argue with or dispute any of these points. In my view, simply laying them out clearly is enough to condemn them. Rather, I defy any honest and informed reader to avoid asking the obvious question:

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?

What is wrong with this man? Or more to the point, what is wrong with the people who go along with this utter inanity?

As ISIS sweeps through Iraq and Syria, as its units operate in more and more locations in the Middle-East and Northern Africa, as (no doubt) ISIS terrorists are at this very moment getting off of boats, ready to make an end run at Rome, Obama wants to counter ISIS on Twitter.

This is insane. But of course Obama is not insane.

Merely treasonous.

BREAKING: ISIS Seizes Parts of Sinai City After Coordinated Attacks

Tweet

The nearby Rafah border crossing, a few miles from Israel and the Gaza strip

The War has come to Egypt.

A few hours ago we mentioned President Obama's support of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood and ISIS are separate and to some extent opposed entities, they in turn are both working to bring down the current Abdel Fattah el-Sisi government, and no doubt draw members from the same sources. The recent assassination of Egypt's top prosecutor could have been undertaken by either group. Given the Obama Administration's support for the Brotherhood and its lukewarm dealings with el-Sisi, it is arguably now de facto allied with ISIS in a rapidly expanding conflict.

From the International Business Times (1 July, 10:23 AM CST):

A series of coordinated attacks in Egypt’s northern Sinai city of Sheikh Zuweid has left up to 50 people dead amid growing concern over the Islamic State group's spread in North Africa, military and security officials said. The Sinai-based group, "State of Sinai," which has pledged allegiance to ISIS, took responsibility for the attacks on social media. 

The assault began Wednesday morning when militants launched a coordinated series of attacks against military checkpoints and posts and detonated suicide bombs. The militants cut off streets leading to the city's police station, bombed government posts and checkpoints and stationed themselves throughout the city, media reports said. The attack came just one day after Egypt’s president pledged to broaden his government’s crackdown on Islamic militant groups operating out of the peninsula. 

Egyptian military F-17 jets bombarded ISIS targets in the Sinai following the attacks, the Daily Star reported. A journalist based in Sinai, Mostafa Singer, told Daily News Egypt that the city was out of the control of Egyptian security forces, and ISIS released a statement announcing they had seized parts of Sheikh Zuweid, according to the Guardian. “We have total control of many sites, and have seized what was in them,” the statement read. 

A policeman denied that the city was under the group's control, a Twitter account with the handle @EgyptianStreets said, citing Daily News Egypt. He admitted, however, that ISIS had effectively laid siege to the city... 

In January, the same group responsible for Wednesday's assault was responsible for a series of attacks which resulted in more than 40 deaths. Similarly, in October 2014, the group launched an attack that led to 30 deaths. Sheikh Zuweid was a target in both assaults. 

The attacks highlight growing security concerns in Egypt, where Islamic militant attacks have surged following the military’s ousting of Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, amid widescale street protests against the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood president. Last month, Egypt’s court sentenced the former leader to death, a move the U.S. called “deeply troubling.” 

The sentence followed suit with thousands of mass death sentences and arrests which have been handed down against Islamic extremists and government opponents under President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, the country's former military chief who became its president last year and has established himself as hard-handed against terror. 

On Monday, the country’s top prosecutor was assassinated in the capital, Cairo, by unknown assailants, in an attack that may have been linked to anger over Morsi's death sentence. 

Israel has closed its border with Egypt amid security concerns, and the IDF said they were closely monitoring the border, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Ode to Obamalodon: A Case Study in Evolution

Tweet

Transitional Obamalodon with half-formed musculature  

(On the inspiration for the title, see here.)

Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage is well known and parts of it have been catalogued in a number of places. But I wanted to set out a comprehensive account for the record, including the most recent mutation from "it should be left up to the states" to "it shouldn't be left up to the states". The account is long and (for some may be) tedious, but such is often the case with these things. If you're quickly reading this post on your phone  and only have a few minutes before your date returns from her cigarette, here are the takeaways:

1. On gay marriage, most people know that Obama was against it before he was for it. But fewer know that he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. The technical name for this is "evolutionary reversal." Among evolutionary biologists it is a recognized, though somewhat uncommon phenomenon.
2. Many if not most politicians evolve on issues. Though, especially among Democrats the gay marriage issue has been a veritable laboratory in widespread and rapid evolutionary activity. However, Obama is notable, if not unique in repeatedly recognizing the evolutionary process as it was happening and indeed, in forecasting future evolutionary changes. Take a look at these gills, baby. I won't have them forever.
3. Many Obama opponents see the evolution thing as a dodge. His current views were always his real views. He was secretly hiding his views until the time was right to reveal them, etc. I do not see it this way (and no, I'm not kidding or joking around on this one). I fully believe that Obama was in favor of gay marriage, then was against it, then was for it. He was for leaving it up to the states, then he was against that. As to why his views changed or why, say, his particular view at one instance might have been this rather than that, those are separate questions. But I think Obama's views simply are...whatever they are at the time. That's how he thinks. That's what views are to him. Of course, I don't find this laudable or re-assuring. Rather, I find it, well, fascistic. In large part, Obama's views at any one time are whatever he thinks they should be to most effectively strive for, attain or hold on to power. Or, to put it another way, they are what he believes will serve him best at maximizing his own power over others. I didn't vote for him, by the way. How did you guess?
4. On this note, Obama may currently be in favor of gay marriage, but I believe if he thought it politically expedient, he would not only be against gay marriage (as he was when that was politically expedient) but would be in favor of criminalizing gay conduct and imposing harsh punishments on such. Off to the camps with them, if it came to that. What? You think that's unfair? Well, note that Obama is an intense supporter (to the point of ignoring all other considerations including traditional and obvious U.S. interests) of the Muslim Brotherhood--an outlawed hard-core Muslim group, whose stated aim is to impose full-blown Sharia law on the people of Egypt. Where is his liberal concern for gays (or anyone) in that case? (See the last two items, below).

Okay, so here goes. Gay marriage, Yes or No?

1996: Yes.
State Senate candidate questionnaire from Outlines--a Chicago gay newspaper:

I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.

1998: Maybe.
Similar questionnaire from Outlines:

Do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Undecided. 

Would you co-sponsor such a bill? Undecided.

2004: No, but for strategic reasons.
Interview with Windy City Times:

I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ...What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. … Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

2004: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with WTTW Chicago public television:

What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting. … We have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved. … I don’t think marriage is a civil right...but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions.

2006: No, but this may be because I am infected with society's prejudices.
From The Audacity of Hope:

I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. …[But] it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.

2007: No, though yes to civil unions.
Democratic Primary Debate sponsored by a gay rights group:

I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

2008: No, though yes to civil unions.
Interview with megachurch Pastor Rick Warren:

I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix...I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.

2008: No, though (not quoted here) yes to civil unions and no to federal intervention either way.
Interview with MTV:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

2010: No, but I may be evolving.
Interview with a group of liberal bloggers:

I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.

2011: No. Never. But he may be evolving.
White House Press Secretary Dan Pfeiffer to Net Roots Nation activists:

The president has never favored same-sex marriage. He is against it. The country is evolving on this, and he is evolving on it.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states.
David Corn of Mother Jones, quoting an Administration source:

[President Obama] has always said that it is a state issue, and he's not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment [against gay marriage], but he's not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.

2012: Yes, but it should be up to the states:
Interview on Good Morning America:

I think it is a mistake to — try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

2012: Yes, and if it is recognized in some states, that recognition cannot be denied by other states.
Same Interview:

Well, I — you know, my Justice Department has already — said that it is not gonna defend — the Defense Against Marriage Act [which attempted to block the decisions in some states from impacting the decisions of other states]; that we consider that a violation of [the] equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that — that move on the part of the Justice Department.

2012: Yes.
Same Interview:

At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

2015: Yes, and it should NOT be up to the states.

Rose Garden reaction to the Obergefell Supreme Court decision requiring states to recognize gay marriage:

And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,...When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. For all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we will ever be alone. That has always been our story. Today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we made our union a little more perfect.

2015: Yes, and rainbow.
The White House a few hours later:

Now, here's the Muslim angle.

2011-2015: No (and throw all the gays in jail).

The Obama Administration, to the anger and disdain of liberal Egyptians, supported the Muslim Brotherhood while it was on the path to turning Egypt into a full-blown authoritarian Islamic state. After the popular coup that ousted that organization and then outlawed it, the Administration has continued to express its support for the Brotherhood, holding meetings with key figures at the White House, among other things.

The stated aim of the Brotherhood has always been to create an Islamic state governed by Islamic Law or Sharia, a legal code that among other things, criminalizes and harshly punishes homosexual behavior. Though in initially gaining and attempting to consolidate political power, the Brotherhood was somewhat cagey on the explicit consequences of Sharia for gays as well as for other groups (mindful of Western opinion and the opinion of Egyptian "moderates"), here are a few hints of their views:

From an article on the 2011-12 elections, "Egypt Islamists 'use homophobia to win votes'":

The Muslim Brotherhood is "using homophobia and xenophobia to attract people's votes like they did before during the constitutional referendum and influenced people to vote 'yes'," according to Jennifer Josef from the international gay rights organisation ILGA. 

At a recent rally attended by about 25,000 people in Tanta, north of Cairo, Mohammed Badie, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood was reported to state that "it is not permissible for democracy to allow what is forbidden (haram) or forbid what is allowed (halal) even if the entire nation agreed to it." 

Mr Badie stressed that "the West has allowed gay marriage under the pretext of democracy, which we will never allow in Egypt..."

And here is a 2012 Foreign Policy Magazine interview with Dr. Mohammed Ghanem, the Brotherhood's spokesman in London:

FP: What is the Brotherhood’s position on gay rights? 

MG: We’ve never had a public issue on this particular problem. Most of the laws in Muslim countries consider it as illegal. Culturally, Muslims don’t like it. Legally speaking, I don’t think there have been any problematic cases. The people simply refuse it.

ISIS or Its Sympathizers Attack Americans on American Soil: The President is Silent

Tweet

"Let me tell you how to make a really mouth watering Ketupat dumpling!"

Think about it.

Now, obviously no one expected Barack Obama to praise Pamela Geller (the organizer of the Draw Muhammad convention) or launch a new Crusade or whatever. But where's the typically generic, "these lawless actions will not stand" or some such? And it would have been a good opportunity to condemn ISIS--as the president has many times before--praise the current U.S. effort against it and remind people that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, etc.

But nothing.

In fairness, I have no doubt that things would have been different if, say, twenty innocent people had been killed. The actual result was almost comical. Two jihadists, all ginned-up with assault weapons, extra ammunition and body armor open fire at an unarmed security guard (who would only sustain a minor injury in the ankle). A traffic cop nearby takes out his pistol and shoots them both dead.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Air Force One that Obama “was informed last night of the violence outside Dallas...and in the mind of the president there is no form of expression that would justify an act of violence.” But no official statement on the matter has been released by the Administration.

The president was flying to New York for a speech and to make an appearance on David Letterman.

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks the president should comment about everything, or that the fate of the world hangs on his every official pronouncement or whatever. But...

ISIS has just claimed responsibility for initiating a heavily armed terrorist attack on American soil.

The Governor of Texas Greg Abbott  called the shooting a "heinous crime" that struck at the heart of the First Amendment.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued an official note: “Ideas must only be defended through democratic debate and dialogue. There is no justification for violence,”

Heck, even the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) officially condemned the attack, reiterating its "repudiation of terrorism in any form" (while predictably also snarking at the Convention organizers).

In seriousness, I predict there will eventually be some sort of official statement about the attack. They're probably monitoring reactions and developments to gauge what to say. Or Obama will be pressed by reporters into saying something.

"The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet. But that never justifies violence. Now if you will excuse me, I have some Ketupat dumplings to whip up for Eid-al-Fitr."