As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama’s Contradictory, Appalling New Hostage Policy

President Obama Wednesday announced a new policy regarding U.S. hostages that is designed, albeit not purposely, to get more Americans kidnapped and killed.

The policy, in short, is that while the government still may not ransom hostages, private citizens can – even though it’s against the law – and will be aided by the government in their “communications” with the terrorists.

Obama said as much during an appearance at the White House, and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said it was only “likely” that the administration would at least try to dissuade families from paying ransoms and did not deny a reporter’s statement that the government was giving its “tacit approval” to the practice.

The policy against ransoming hostages was a sound one based on something the Obama administration doesn’t understand – economic incentives. That is, if you pay someone after they kidnap Americans, the first principle of economics states that they will therefore be incentivized to repeat the practice in order to earn more money.

But private sector economics, whether practiced by U.S. corporations or Islamist barbarians, is beyond the comprehension of the Obama administration folks.

Obama hostage remarks

How, please, to explain a policy that prevents the government from ransoming hostages but allows private citizens to do it? Is money provided by the government qualitatively different in some way than that given by individuals? Does a dollar of money from the Treasury buy more suicide vests, IEDs, plastic explosives, and beheading knives than a dollar from John Q. Smith?

One of the ways this tragically misconceived policy came about was that the hostage families apparently kidnapped the president, as Obama revealed today:

I’ve called these families to offer our condolences after they’ve received gut-wrenching news no parents ever want to hear. I’ve visited with them. I’ve hugged them. I’ve grieved with them. I just spent time with some of the families, as well as some former hostages here at the White House. And needless to say, it was a very emotional meeting. Some are still grieving . . .

As I said to the families who are gathered here today, and as I’ve said to families in the past, I look at this not just as a President, but also as a husband and a father. And if my family were at risk, obviously I would move heaven and earth to get those loved ones back.

If Obama cannot stop his emotions from getting the best of him, with the result that he emits emotion-driven, irrational policy, then he needs to stop meeting with hostage families.

And soon he’s going to be meeting with even more of them.

And BTW, he needs to “look at this” a lot less “as a husband and a father.” Because his personal family feelings are not really relevant to hard-headed national security policy decision making.

This kind of sappiness is exactly what got Ronald Reagan into the Iran-Contra crisis. Reagan got too emotionally attached to U.S. hostages controlled by the Iranians and ended up trading arms for them. And the minute someone was released, more hostages were taken.

Please explain how these comments by Obama make sense:

As President, I also have to consider our larger national security. I firmly believe that the United States government paying ransom to terrorists risks endangering more Americans and funding the very terrorism that we’re trying to stop. And so I firmly believe that our policy ultimately puts fewer Americans at risk . . .

At the same time, we are clarifying that our policy does not prevent communication with hostage-takers — by our government, the families of hostages, or third parties who help these families. And, when appropriate, our government may assist these families and private efforts in those communications — in part, to ensure the safety of family members and to make sure that they’re not defrauded . . .

In some cases, families feel that they’ve been threatened for exploring certain options to bring their loved ones home. That’s totally unacceptable . . .

In particular, I want to point out that no family of an American hostage has ever been prosecuted for paying a ransom for the return of their loved ones.

So we’re against ransoming unless we’re for it.

See if you can make any sense of Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco’s attempt to resolve the contradiction in U.S. policy. Actually, she doesn’t even try.

Note too how casually Obama, now that he’s done it several times, announces that a statute simply will not be enforced. It’s against the law to ransom hostages, but you’ll never see the inside of a courtroom if you do it.

We are a country of principles. We are a country of laws. Unless the president decides otherwise.

Obama’s willlingness to loudly and repeatedly ignore laws sets a dangerous precedent that will no doubt mark the rest of his tenure and probably that of his successor, perhaps even whether that person be a Republican or Democrat.

The viability of the republic rests on the existence of honorable men and women to uphold it and an obedience to the rule of law. Both are now in dangerously declining supply.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

30 Responses to Obama’s Contradictory, Appalling New Hostage Policy

  1. Lord help us.
    I would not dare question any family that has gone though this horror.
    However rules are rules.
    I brought Berghdal on the last thread.
    Was he questioned by the families of his actions?

    • Nobody wants to impeach the creep, just like nobody wanted to impeach his predecessor. I knew Obama was completing Bush’s terms and he is! Hillary will complete Obama’s terms too.

      How soon will Conservatives begin to wear the yellow star?

  2. Lord have mercy. Please God, send our country a God fearing believer.
    This man has put a target on the face of so many Anerican citizens.
    Lord have mercy. There are well meaning innocent lives at stake.
    Even You gave Lot mercy. I believe there are many Lots in this country. Have mercy Lord.
    Have mercy on the United States of America and Your believers therein. In Jesus name I pray it. Amen.

  3. He is sooo unfit to serve! Heard one of the Libs on CNN say that it’s time for a ‘hostage czar’!!

    Imagine what it’s going to be like when ISIS or the Cartels decide to open a franchise on our own soil. Ransom kidnapping in Mexico is commonplace. Heard one drug dealer say that he switched to kidnapping in Mexico – easy money.

    The damn fool can’t keep his mouth shut!!! Whether it’s informing the enemy when we are going to pull our troops out, or announcing the ‘let’s make a deal under the table’ hostage plan.

    It has to be the drugs! His brain is atrophied.

  4. It’s one big mess out there. Thanks to Barack Obama. And now his crazy neighbor Louis Farakhan wants to put the American flag down and his buddies the new Black Panthers’ Shabbaz wants to kills the slave masters. Yes, this was said and yes, it is sporadic and over the top. But then again, Barack and his buddy Al are probably having drinks and are pretty satisfied with their work.

  5. how to explain “a policy that prevents the government from ransoming hostages but allows private citizens to do it?”

    Obama can say that conservatives should be happy because he’s admitting the private sector can do something better than government.

    haha.

    no but seriously, there is no explaining Obama. he also thinks that giving Iran $50 million (or is it billion), lifting sanctions, and providing nuclear-reactor material will PREVENT them from building a bomb, so anything’s possible.

    • They are already at risk–this world is not safe. Life is risk. And life is also determination and ingenuity. These families move heaven and earth to help their loved ones. Yes, this is a typical Obama mishmash–legal, illegal on paper only, bad idea, good idea…but I know what I would do. My prob is I would not have the money.

  6. Did you know that Europeans fund much of ISIS and other terrorist groups through ransom paid in the millions? I have always known in my gut that Obama is sympathetic to the Caliphate as one country after another that he “helps” falls into ISIS’s hands. In the same vein, he his now facilitating a flow of cash straight to them. The wonder is that the media treats him as feckless and a failure. Oh no, dear friends, he knows exactly what he is doing.

  7. There is a dimension to this no one is discussing. Part of Sharia – and an integral part of any islamic caliphate – is the ability to kidnap and ransom infidels. This has been going on literally all throughout history, and is sanctioned in the Koran. Our first military force – the marines – was formed literally to combat this. The slaves that were sold to american slave holders were infidel africans captured by their muslim brothers. Boko haram finances most of it’s operations by kidnapping infidel women and selling them into sex slavery.

    What Obama has really done is legalized this process and brought America further into Sharia compliance.

  8. […] Obama’s contradictory, appalling new hostage policy . . . President Obama Wednesday announced a new policy regarding U.S. hostages that is designed, albeit not purposely, to get more Americans kidnapped and killed. The policy, in short, is that while the government still may not ransom hostages, private citizens can – even though it’s against the law – and will be aided by the government in their “communications” with the terrorists. White House Dossier […]

  9. As I said when this was raised on here before, if I had the money, I would spare no expense to try to get my family member out of hands of headchoppers intact. I guess I am not altruistic enough–or else I have seen the span of history long enough–to think my doing this would create some market…There already is one! Honestly, how many of you would be all “oh well” about it.