FBI Director Comey Admits the United States CANNOT Vet All Syrian Refugees (VIDEO)

FBI DIRECTION COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS BARACK OBAMA LIES … THE US CANNOT VET SYRIAN REFUGEES!!!

FBI Director James Comey testified earlier this week during a House Committee on a Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government DOES NOT have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the United States. As an aside, the 10,000 refugees is just the tip of the iceberg of the 100,000 that Obama wants to lets waltz into the United States.

“You can only query what you’ve collected. And with respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade. This is a different situation.”

Who are you going to believe regarding the vetting process and homeland security, the FBI or a known liar like Barack Obama and his cronies in the DOJ?

On 21 October 2015, FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on a Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does NOT have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the United States.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson.

“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record on that person.”

Secretary of State John Kerry Said What … There was a “Rationale” for the Assault on Satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, Unlike the Attack in Paris

HE SAID WHAT?!?

Did the United States Secretary of State John Kerry just make a justification for a terror attack that saw the death of innocent lives? He most certainly did. As reported at The Politico, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested on Tuesday that there was a “rationale” for the assault on satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, unlike the more recent attacks in Paris. WHAT!!! There was a rationale behind an Islamic terror attack of a media outlet that killed 12 innocent people? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What kind of an ass-hat makes such a comment? The sad reality is we get to see a true glimpse into what the Obama administration really thinks about terrorism and why they have done little to nothing to stop ISIS. They actually think in some cases there is a “rationale” to terrorists killing people. UNREAL.

Jeb Bush to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the LEFT …There is no rationale for barbaric Islamic terrorism

Secretary of State John Kerry suggested on Tuesday that there was a “rationale” for the assault on satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, unlike the more recent attacks in Paris.

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said in Paris, according to a transcript of his remarks. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, OK, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

“This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people,” he continued.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo, which took place in January, killed 12 people and was perpetrated by radical Islamic militants with ties to al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. An al Qaeda statement claiming responsibility for the murders said they were retribution for the magazine’s decision to run cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed, and to avenge the drone strike that killed Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

CNN’s Christine Amanpour Gives Brutal Review of Obama’s Islamic State Claims at G-20 Summit … She Says, “ISIS is not Contained”

YOU KNOW ITS BAD WHEN CNN’s CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR SAYS BARACK OBAMA IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH … 

Following Barack Obama’s speech at the G-20 Summit in Turkey and defensive Q&A on ISIS, many have criticized his comments and his strategy on ISIS. However, no one could have seen this coming. Just how bad has Barack Obama been with his plan to defeat ISIS, if he even has one? Even uber-leftist Christine Amanpour criticized Barack Obama for his comment that his (Obama’s) strategy on ISIS was working. She then went on to same that it is not true that ISIS is contained. Did one of the most liberal MSM individuals just call Barack Obama a liar? But what should we expect from the Liar in Chief who told us that with Obamacare, you can keep your healthcare plan and doctor if you like them.

Now he wants you to believe that ISIS is contained and his plan is working, REALLY?

The Blaze:

“If anybody was expecting to hear in the passion and eloquence and speech patterns of President Obama a tipping point, they did not hear that today,” Amanpour said, adding that he was “defensive” when pressed on American leadership.

In dismissing critics of his Islamic State strategy, Amanpour said Obama is also dismissing the “very palpable fear among citizens” in France, Britain and the United States that terrorists could target their cities next.

“He said something that is pretty incredible, according to many of the military experts here and around the world who I have spoken to — that our strategy is working,” she added.

Pushing back against the assertion, Amanpour argued only the ground troops strategy has worked to battle the Islamic State. She pointed to operations to reclaim territory from the terrorist group in Sinjar, Kobane and Tikrit as evidence of that.

“He’s saying that ISIS is contained. This is also not actually true,” she said. “ISIS is not contained because ISIS attacked a Russian plane, attacked Beirut” and now attacked Paris.

CNN Reporter Jim Acosta Asks Barack Obama: “Why Can’t We Take Out These Bastards?” … Listen To Obama’s Defensive Answer

FROM THE FAILURE IN CHIEF, LISTEN TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA MORE DEFENSIVE AND UPSET WITH REPORTERS QUESTIONS THAN WITH ISIS …

How dare the media hold Emperor Barack Obama accountable for his failed policies, who do they think they are? Following Obama’s pathetic ISIS speech at the G-20 Summit in Turkey, the King held court and answered questions from the minions. Many have been critical of Obama’s policies is dealing with ISIS, but is is startling that the liberal media is now taking the lead and posing some glaring questions to Obama. CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Barack Obama the question that pretty much all Americans have wanted to ask, “Why Can’t We Take Out These Bastards?”

Obama’s response was weak, pathetic and defensive …

“Jim, I just spent the last three questions answering that very question, so I don’t know what more you want me to add. I think I’ve described very specifically what our strategy is, and I’ve described very specifically why we do not pursue some of the other strategies that have been suggested.”

In response to Acosta’s question, Obama reiterated that the U.S. military could retake territory from the Islamic State, but the result would be occupation. An occupation, huh? Is this what this fool really thinks? So we are not going to destroy this festering cancer called ISIS because this liberal coward this it will be an occupation? Obama went on to say, “So we are going to continue to pursue the strategy that has the best chance of working, even though it does not offer the satisfaction, I guess, of a neat headline or an immediate resolution.” OBAMA, WHAT PART DON’T YOU GET THAT YOUR STRATEGY IS FAILING!!!

HUFFPO:

CNN senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta took an unusually blunt approach Monday in questioning President Barack Obama about why the United States has not destroyed the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS.

“A lot of Americans have this frustration that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS,” Acosta said. “I guess the question is, and if you’ll forgive the language, but why can’t we take out these bastards?”

Obama, who was speaking in Antalya, Turkey, at the G-20 summit, responded that he had “just spent the last three questions answering that very question.”

Earlier Monday, Obama had defended the U.S. strategy against the Islamic State, which has largely focused on airstrikes, amid calls for deploying a large number of ground troops in response to the Paris terrorist attacks. Obama said a ground invasion would be a “mistake” because it would require using U.S. troops to occupy Iraqi and Syrian cities indefinitely.

New York Times/CBS News Poll: Nearly 60% of Americans Think Race Relations Are Bad Under Obama

Remember when Barack Obama was elected and people said that it would make black/white race relations better … Hows that Hopey/Changey stuff working out for you America?

In 2008 many Americans, including many whites with liberal white guilt, elected Barack Hussein Obama because they thought it would ease race relation in the United States and some how correct the evils of slavery and past racism and discrimination. However, some seven years later and any thought of black/white race relations getting any better are out the window. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad. In fact, nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse. During Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, nearly 60% of blacks said race relations were generally bad, but that number was cut in half shortly after he won. However, it has now soared to 68%. But although blacks think race relations are worse, they could not find it in them-self to say that Obama has done a poor job with race relations. Imagine that. However, under Obama he has brought the racial pressure cooker to the brink and his taking of of one side has been on display for 7 years. It has become evident that with Obama, only black lives do matter, as he can only see himself as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, rather than his half white side of murdered Kathryn Steinle. Too bad that Obama is supposed to be the leader of all, not just some.

As Instapundit opines, this is Obama’s true legacy.

Seven years ago, in the gauzy afterglow of a stirring election night in Chicago, commentators dared ask whether the United States had finally begun to heal its divisions over race and atone for the original sin of slavery by electing its first black president. It has not. Not even close.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week reveals that nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse. By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.

The swings in attitude have been particularly striking among African-Americans. During Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, nearly 60 percent of blacks said race relations were generally bad, but that number was cut in half shortly after he won. It has now soared to 68 percent, the highest level of discontent among blacks during the Obama years and close to the numbers recorded in the aftermath of the riots that followed the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.

Wake up America, this is what happens when you elect a community agitator who’s entire presidency has been based on racial divide and class warfare. In many respects, the only reason why Obama was ever voted into office, especially among white voters, was because of the notion that he would some how make race relations better. It certainly was not because he was qualified to be president. However, how many times must you be reminded, its not about the color of one’s skin, it is about the content of their character.