The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Year Five of Obama's Foreign Policy Ineptitude - The
Price of Appeasement and Tolerance in the Middle East By Mark Alexander
"A universal peace
... is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the
imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent
enthusiasts." --James Madison (1792)
History
of the World 101: Tyranny does not leave vacant the void created by appeasement
and tolerance:
In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
addressed his countrymen infamously insisting that signing the Munich Agreement
and adopting a policy of appeasement and tolerance toward Adolf Hitler would
provide "peace for our time."
Seventy years and some very hard lessons later, candidate Barack Hussein
Obama promised another "peace for our time," adopting Chamberlain's foreign policy and
insisting he could mollify our radical Islamist foes and "reset" our
relationship with Middle Eastern states by resolving the conflict between
Western democracy and Islamic fascism.
Recall, too, that he did so to great applause from his legions of mesmerized
supporters.
Regarding the post-9/11
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and the larger War on Terror,
Obama promised, "Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war.
My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will
give them a new mission and that is to end this war -- responsibly,
deliberately, but decisively." Of
course, the only way to end a just war "responsibly, deliberately, but
decisively" is through victory.
Obama based his foreign
policy expertise with Islamists on little more than a grossly naïve assertion:
"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim
countries."
At that time, it was abundantly clear to anyone who
could think beyond the cadence of Obama's rhetoric that he was a national
security neophyte. Little has changed since then. A few months after his first
election, Obama departed on his now-infamous Middle East Apology Tour, with the objective of appeasing the world's
most dangerous fascist movement since the Third Reich -- Islamists occupying
the borderless nation of "Jihadistan" -- one that is singularly
devoted to the destruction of Western democracy, and one that seeks the
imposition of a worldwide caliphate and Shariah law.
Obama's National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough,
insisted that Obama was uniquely qualified to satiate the threat of Islamist
regimes, noting, "the president himself experienced Islam on three
continents before ... you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father
-- obviously Muslim Americans are a key part of Illinois and Chicago." Well, "community organizer" to the
rescue!
Obama insisted a key
part of his policy toward Islamist states was the need to re-educate Americans
about the "religion of peace," stating, "I think that in the
United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more
effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you
actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest
Muslim countries in the world." There are
indeed about 2.5 million Muslims in the U.S., but Obama's "largest Muslim countries" calculus neglected the
fact that there are 205 million Muslims in Indonesia, 180 million in Pakistan,
175 million in India, 80 million in Egypt, 74 million in Iran, 32 million in
Iraq, 30 million in Afghanistan, 25 million in Yemen and 20 million in Syria,
and a billion Muslims in other
countries around the world.
~~~~~~
42% Favor Candidate Who Opposes All Tax Increases
Voters are still in
agreement that tax cuts and government spending decreases help the economy, and
support for a candidate who would oppose all tax increases is at its highest
level in over a year. A new
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S.
Voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who promised to oppose all tax increases over one who would only raise
taxes on the rich. Forty-one percent
(41%) would vote for the one who would only raise taxes on the wealthy.
Seventeen percent (17%) are undecided.
~~~~~~
Stupid Liberal Bumper Stickers By Mike Adams
I spent last week driving across the country – all
the way from Colorado to North Carolina. I started my trip in a liberal city
and I ended my trip in a liberal city. Along the way, I saw a lot of stupid
liberal bumper stickers. I thought of a lot of responses to those stupid bumper
stickers. I also thought it would be a real crime if I didn’t share them with
you. Here are my top ten.
1. This is Not a Medical Instrument. (This
bumper sticker had a picture of a coat hanger on it). Thanks. I already knew
that a coat hanger isn’t a medical instrument. That’s why a woman shouldn’t
insert one into her vagina in order to kill her unborn child. I plan to get a
bumper sticker with a gun on it saying “And this isn’t a medical instrument
either. Keep it out of your vagina. And stop claiming a right to kill an
innocent baby in a clean and sterile environment.” Unfortunately, it would take
a bumper wider than the First Lady’s fanny to capture the idea.
2. How Can You Be Pro Life and Eat Dead
Animals? I don’t know. I guess the same way I can drive by a dead squirrel on the
highway but would feel compelled to stop if I saw a dead person. Similarly, I
guess I can’t equate a dead squirrel with a dead baby. And, yes, I do shoot and
eat squirrels. I’m from Mississippi. Don’t judge me. You don’t know what you’re
missing.
3. Stop Global Warming. Ok, let’s do
that. While we’re at it, let’s print bumper stickers saying “Stop Continental
Drift.” It will remind people that every problem is a human problem with a
government solution.
4. War is not the Answer. Ok. What
was the question? I was fondling my new Taurus Judge when I saw that one. And
stop honking at me in traffic while I’m busy reloading with a fresh batch of 45
long colts.
5. Love Wins. I saw that
one on I-64 East somewhere in West Virginia. Who cares if she’s your cousin? Or
even your little sister. Love wins! And pass the fried squirrel, Jethro!
6. I like my president like I like my
coffee. Strong, Smooth, and Black. Oh, really? When did Michelle Obama get
elected president? You can’t be talking about Barack. He’s not strong. In fact,
when he turns sideways and sticks out his tongue, he looks like a zipper. He’s
not smooth without a TelePrompTer. And saying he’s black is really only a
half-truth.
~~~~~~
Incompetent Commander in Chief
Obama Spills Military Strategy for Syria Before
Firing a Shot Advertisement Like a boxer announcing he's going to throw an
uppercut now, President Obama went on PBS and announced that he plans to fire a
limited "shot across the bow" of the Syrian government. "If we are saying in a clear and
decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, 'stop
doing this,' that can have a positive impact on our national security over the
long term," Obama said. "Clear and decisive but very limited" --
let's ponder that a moment. Now, I could imagine a different president
-- say, Reagan -- using a "clear, decisive and limited" attack to
send an effective message. It would probably involve dropping a really, really
big bomb on the presidential palace in the middle of a city -- something just
short of a nuke, like one of the infamous "daisy cutters." But I get
the impression that's not what Obama means. His history shows not an aversion to violence, but an aversion to
violence being attributed to him. Think of Afghanistan, where the rules of
engagement were changed to appease Muslim sensibilities at the cost of American
lives. And think of Libya, where the U.S. military
"supported" other countries in the fighting and employed mercenaries,
even though we were key in instigating the conflict that tossed out Moammar
Gadhafi. And then there's Syria itself, where Obama has been covertly supplying
arms and personnel (mercenaries again) for years to instigate and carry out the
proxy "civil" war.
~~~~~~
Boehner to Obama: How Does Syria Plan Comport With
'Exclusive' Constitutional Power of Congress?
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com)
- House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) sent a letter to President Barack Obama
late Wednesday asking the president to tell the nation how his plans for Syria
are “legally justified” and how that legal justification comports with the
constitutional authority of Congress to authorize military action. The letter marked a significant shift in both
tone and substance from the statement Boehner had issued on Monday urging the
president to “consult with Congress” and “explain” to the American people
whatever “course of action he chooses” to take.” “In addition,” Boehner wrote
in his Wednesday letter, "it is essential you address on what basis any
use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with
the exclusive authority of congressional authorization under Article 1 of the
Constitution.”
~~~~~~~~
Krauthammer: Is ‘Humiliated’ Obama Being ‘Shamed’ Into
War?
Britain’s rejection of
taking action against the Syrian regime is a “complete humiliation” for
President Barack Obama, syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator
Charles Krauthammer said Thursday. Obama has been in consultation
with several heads of state, including British Prime Minister David Cameron,
about a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the
government believes to have been behind the chemical weapons attack that killed
hundreds near Damascus last week. A United Nations investigation has not made a
determination. “It is a complete
humiliation for the Obama administration,” Krauthammer said on Fox News.
“Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do which I think it’s a bad
idea. But let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct
of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act
unilaterally. “So who’s the main ally in the world who’s been with us in every
trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted
against us,” Krauthammer continued. “The other supposed ally was the French,
President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the
U.N. inspectors which will be early next week.”
He pointed out that Democrats, including Obama,
previously ridiculed the Bush administration for supposedly taking unilateral
action in Iraq. “So here is Obama and
the Democrats who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly
unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved
boots on the ground, a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to
gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing.” In his Washington
Post column published earlier Thursday, Krauthammer said the Obama
administration was being “shamed into action.”
~~~~~~
The Syria Question - Mark Alexander
"[W]e have concluded that the Syrian government
in fact carried these [chemical weapons attacks] out," says tough-talking
Barack Obama. Yet there is some doubt that Bashar al-Assad himself actually
ordered the chemical attacks. U.S. intelligence officials call the evidence
"not a slam dunk," while British intelligence concludes that there is
"a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement
that the regime was responsible for the attacks." The alternate theory is
that a possible rogue commander ordered the attacks. However, the practical
effect of whether it was such a rogue official or Assad himself is of little
import.
Either way, action against Assad's regime is not a
sure thing at the moment, despite Obama's naive and ill-advised "red
line" threat, and his current insistence that he can go it alone if need
be. In the UK, an ally Obama hoped to "lead from behind," Parliament
rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's appeal to follow Obama to war, leaving
France as the president's only possible ally. Obama, meanwhile, isn't worrying
about Congress -- whatever he does will be on his own there too. Unfortunately,
the administration has telegraphed its punches, and an unnamed U.S. official
noted that Obama wants a strike against Syria "just muscular enough not to
get mocked." Now there's a bold foreign policy. U.S. military
action in service of Obama's ego is not in our national interest. The former community organizer and Nobel
Peace Prize laureate is trying desperately to look presidential with his
proposed "shot across the bow," but the reality is that the
deterioration in the Middle East is in large measure thanks to his failed
foreign policy, which has given rise to the "Arab Fall." Wasn't this
the man who bragged in 2009 that he'd "restored America's standing in the
world"?
~~~~~~
Bill Clinton: It’s Harder to Vote than Purchase Assault
Weapons by Gary
DeMar
When you start hearing
intelligent people say stupid things, you know they’ve lost the argument. Bill
Clinton is a smart man. He’s a Rhodes Scholar. He’s well read. But he can’t defend liberalism by an appeal
to facts. So he does the only thing he can. He makes up stuff. The same
tactic is used by today’s racialists. Everything
is about race. Criticism of an Obama policy is an attack on him and all blacks
because he’s black. People are getting tired of hearing the “it’s all about
race” narrative. Even President Obama is not convinced that race is a
factor of conservative opposition to his policies. Obama told PBS' Newshour
that Republican opposition to his policies isn't about the color of his skin.
“It doesn't have to do with race in particular.” Bill Clinton’s latest act of
desperation to motivate the liberal base is to claim that voting is more
difficult than purchasing an assault weapon.
~~~~~~
Obama vs. House Republicans: “Nuclear War” Written by
Gary North
Sometimes, I get excited. What if this plays out? The House of Representatives may decide to let
Obama’s immigration reform bill die. The House doesn’t kill it. It just lets it
sit. This caught my attention: an article with the catchy title,
“Obama’s Immigration Nuclear Option: Stopping Deportations Unilaterally.” When
it comes to the idea of a political nuclear war between the President and the
House of Representatives, I get all tingly. If that happens, advocates of
immigration reform have another idea: They’ll
push Obama to press the button on the immigration-reform nuclear option.
The option commonly referred to by immigration reformers as “Plan B” would see
the president take executive action to prevent undocumented immigrants from
being deported — along the lines of the deferred-action program the
administration created for “Dreamers” last year. It wouldn’t be a panacea, and
it wouldn’t give them citizenship. But such an action could at least spare some
from the constant threat of deportation. And perhaps just as important, it
could exact major political revenge on Republicans, galvanizing the Hispanic
electorate against them and further hurting their image with the
fastest-growing segment of voters. By now, you know the phrase “undocumented
immigrants” is MediaSpeak for “illegal aliens.” Obama does not have to enforce
the deportation law. He can just sort of forget to enforce it. That would be
round one of the “nuclear option.” But that might not end it. Spending bills
must originate in the House of Representatives, according to the U.S.
Constitution. (You remember the Constitution, don’t you? That’s the document
that says that Congress must declare all wars.) The House might sort of forget
to provide any funding for the laws that President Obama decides to enforce.
What would be President Obama’s nuclear response? How could he force the House
to provide the funding? He could get out his teleprompter and deliver a speech
against the House for not funding the laws of the land. Then Boehner could do a
YouTube video on enforcing the laws against illegal aliens. Then Obama could
threaten to tell the Secretary of the Treasury to stop cooking the books and
admit that the debt ceiling was breached on June 1 — something the President
has refused to do. Then the federal government would shut down. That’s why I
get all tingly. I don’t think it will come to nuclear war. One side or the
other will surrender. Obama and Boehner are both very good at strategic
capitulations. It’s President Sequester vs. Congressman TARP. Both of them are
willing to eat a mud sandwich or two.
~~~~~~
"The
power of the people pervading the proposed system, together with the strong
confederation of the states, will form an adequate security against every
danger that has been apprehended." –John
Dickinson, Letters of Fabius, 1788
No comments:
Post a Comment