What Is The Threat To The US?
Sep 4, 2013 Military, Political
Some entity in Syria used the nerve agent Sarin in the ongoing civil war. The United States claims that the government used the nerve agent and the UN says the rebels used it. The US report on the issue is full of caveats including one that we do not have assets on the ground. There is even some doubt as to whether Sarin was used or if chlorine was the gas that killed all those people (some report smelling chlorine). The Obama regime wants to attack Syria as a punishment for using the chemical weapons.
Is our military supposed to be used to punish other nations?
Regardless of the reason for the use of force the US Congress is the body given the power to authorize the use of force. There is a law (50 USC Chapter 33, ss 1541) called the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of this was to give presidents the ability to respond to an emergency requiring military force when the response was needed before Congress could act to authorize it. There are three items listed that allow the use of force and they are:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There has been no declaration of war and there is no statutory authorization (such as a treaty or UN Resolution), and there is no national emergency created by an attack upon our country, its territories or possessions or our armed forces.
Given these facts there is no authority for the use of force under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama and his sock puppet John Kerry claim Obama has the authority but he clearly does not.
The US Congress must authorize the use of force and that is being debated at this time. Keep in mind during the debates that saving face for an American president is NOT one of the reasons that use of force is allowed.
The UN is unlikely to authorize the use of force as that body contends the rebels used the nerve agent and given that Russia has a veto vote and is a strong supporter of the Syrian government they will likely veto. This leaves it to the US Congress (unless, of course, Obama decides to strike no matter what) to allow or disallow the use of force. That body should think long and hard before it commits the use of our nation’s military and it should look at what threat is posed by the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well as the likely ramifications of the use of force.
If we attack Syria what will happen? Syria and Iran will attack Israel as punishment for the attack. We will condemn such acts but is their use of force for punishment any worse than ours?
The attacks on Israel will draw a huge military response form that nation and many other countries will be drawn into the conflict. World War Three will begin.
What happens if we attack Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and those agents end up killing untold numbers of people? We claim we will not attack the storage sites but how do we know where they are and what is to say that Assad (or the Rebels) will not move the agents to places we are likely to hit in order to have such a release? How will we be viewed if our acts cause death by chemical agent?
What happens if we attack the Syrian Government and it turns out the Rebels used the nerve agents? If Obama thinks he needs to save face now what will he do if he attacks and was wrong all along? There will be no face saving measure in the world if he attacks and is wrong about it.
As far as I am concerned the nerve agent attacks in Syria took place in a civil war and their use did not affect us in any way whatsoever. Our property, our nation and our people were NOT attacked so there is no reason to shoot at anyone involved in that conflict.
If we decide to use force against the Syrian Government we will be helping al Qaeda (the Rebels) and these people are our enemy. These Rebels have been filmed murdering children at a firing squad and cutting out the heart and liver of a soldier and eating them. Are these the people we want to help?
Why in the name of all that is good would we want to help either side in this conflict? Both sides have animals in them but right now those animals are fighting each other. We should sit back and watch the fight and not get involved unless we are attacked.
Obama is foolish and inexperienced. It was his mouth that backed him into this corner and that is his problem. We should not use our military to help him save face.
We will end up looking like fools.
Any member of Congress on the left who screamed all those years about Bush lying to get us into war should remember all the things they said about Iraq not attacking us before they vote on Syria. Obama should remember he said he would not have voted to authorize force (yes Bush went to Congress and got approval regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons) and John Kerry should remember what he said about Vietnam not posing any threat to the US when he was an anti war protestor oh so many years ago.
Republicans, you better sack up or you will face backlash on election day.
As for Democrats, who knows what they will face. Their party has mind numbed drones with short memories who follow the collective.
Say no to attacking Syria…
Related:
Will Rand Paul Filibuster?
Syria hiding weapons and moving troops
France now wavering
Putin warns US
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: assad, constitution, john kerry, Obama, rebels, Syria
Between Barack And A Hard Place In Syria
Aug 29, 2013 Political
Barack Obama discussed the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria as a red line that would be crossed and require action. The red line was crossed and now something has to be done or Obama will look like all talk and no action. He will lose face if he does not do something and this is of his own doing.
Obama is weighing options with regard to a military strike in Syria. He has not recalled Congress to get its approval for such an action and it appears as if he might not do so. The use of chemical weapons in Syria is not an attack on the US and there is not an imminent threat to this country so he is required to get Congressional approval for any military action.
Whether you agree with George Bush’s decision to go into Iraq or not he did get Congressional approval for the use of military force. No matter what the outcome or how one feels about it Bush did what he was supposed to do.
The reality is that if Obama strikes Syria then Syria and Iran will strike Israel. This will draw in players like Russia and China as well as the UK, France and the US. In other words, this situation is a powder keg with a short fuse that could result in World War III.
Obama is in a tight spot because of his mouth.
His Democrats are in a tight spot because after years of bashing Bush for actions in Iraq they are now faced with a nearly identical situation (and the WMD in Syria likely came from Iraq). These Democrats will have to rationalize any yes vote on military action because they all eventually expressed their disapproval.
When there was talk about going into Iran Joe Biden said he would push for impeachment of Bush if he did so without Congressional approval. Barack Obama said that the president could not use military force without congressional approval unless there was an attack on our country or a threat of imminent attack. Now he is pushing to do that which he said was illegal and that which his VP (who was a Senator at the time) said would cause him to push for impeachment.
How will Democrats reconcile the conflict between doing the exact opposite of what they railed about and their desire to keep Obama from looking weaker than he already looks to the rest of the world?
If Barack Obama orders military force be used in Syria without Congressional approval then the military has an obligation not to carry out the orders and Obama should be impeached. If anyone in the military carries out those orders they should be prosecuted for obeying unlawful orders.
If Obama calls on Congress and Congress gives the approval then we have to live with the consequences though Democrats will still have to explain how their change of heart was for national security and not to cover Obama’s rear end.
If Obama goes to Congress and does not get approval then he is stuck with his foot in his mouth looking like a paper tiger.
In addition, all the anti war, anti Bush protesters will have to show the same reaction to Obama as they did to Bush. To do otherwise would show their blatant anti American hypocrisy.
Keep in mind, Bush got approval from Congress.
Now it is time for the alleged Constitutional law professor to follow the Constitution.
I know why should he start now?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, chemical weapons, constitution, Iran, Iraq, lies, Obama, Syria
WWMLKL
Aug 27, 2013 Political
What Would Martin Luther King Like?
Barack Obama gave an interview to a couple of radio hosts and in the interview he said that MLK would have liked Obamacare. It is a prelude to what he will be saying in an upcoming speech. He will try to convince the mind numbed drones that follow him that MLK would have liked Obamacare.
Here is what Obama said:
“Oh he’d like that,” [MLK would like Obamacare] Obama asserted. “Well, because he understood that health care, health security is not a privilege, it’s something in a county as wealthy as ours, everybody should have access to.”
Obama reminded the pair [radio hosts] that it was important for everyone to sign up for Obamacare on healthcare.gov.
“We were just talking with some folks earlier about the fact that, for a lot of people, it will be cheaper than your cell phone bill,” Obama explained. Washington Examiner
First of all, how would Obama know what MLK would like? Obama was a small child when MLK was murdered. I do not recall King calling for universal government run health care but I do recall he was a fan of people being free. He had fairly conservative values and it seems unlikely he would have approved of anything that would have made anyone, particularly blacks, more dependent on government.
It seems to me that King would not have fought for civil rights and equality of all only to have the blacks put back into bondage as slaves on the Democrat plantation.
Obama claims that King would recognize that everyone should have access to health care. Health care is not a right and it is not a privilege, it is a commodity. And everyone has ACCESS to it. The fight that is involved is who will pay for it. You see, anyone can go to a doctor. The fight comes in when it is time to pay the bill. The people who think like Obama believe that it should be paid for by someone else.
Obama was sure to remind people that they should sign up to become more dependent on government, something King would likely not approve of.
Obama then claimed it would be cheaper, for some folks, than their cell phone bill.
In what world is Obama living? I imagine there are some folks who have really high cell phone bills so Obamacare might be cheaper. I imagine if these folks fall into the category where taxpayers subsidize their health care (there we go again, determining that someone else pays the bill) then it might cost less than their cell bill. How could health care possibly cost less than the cell phone bill of the leeches who are using one or more Obamaphones?
But let me make this clear, if you have a cell phone bill that is about the same cost or more than health insurance you can get rid of the phone and pay for your own insurance. The reality is Obama wants everyone dependent on government. He wants the takers to increase in numbers.
Once people depend on government to live they will continue to fight for politicians who promise them more and more and who promise not to take away their goodies.
Look how the elderly are used as pawns. Many become dependent on Social Security and that is used as a weapon to get their votes. They vote in their best interests and not the best interests of the country.
Obama wants more people on the dole so they will keep voting for the Marxists in the Democrat Party. The transformation can’t take place without the hangers on who refuse to live their own lives or take responsibility. As long as Obama and his thieves can get people signed up they can be controlled.
There is no difference between liberals and a drug dealer. They both get you hooked and then exploit you.
One last thing, Obama claims that in a wealthy country like ours everyone should have access to health care. I have already pointed out that everyone has access and that the dispute is who pays.
But let’s look at the country as wealthy as ours myth. We are over 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and have over 100 TRILLION dollars of unfunded liabilities. We are not wealthy.
We can’t even pay our own bills.
Obama will never be able to see this. He has lived his life having everything handed to him and he is in a job where he does what he wants and others foot the bill. He thinks there is no end to the money.
And he is wrong.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: heath care, lies, marxist, mlk, Obama, obamacare, wealth
Was Bush Right After All?
Aug 26, 2013 Political
And if he was will he get an apology from the left?
When the authority to use force in Iraq was granted there were about 19 items in the resolution and only three or so dealt with WMD. There was plenty of credible evidence that Iraq had WMD and used them. In fact we know he used nerve agent on his own people. Despite this evidence and despite a number of Democrats alleging that Saddam Hussein had WMD (when Clinton was president) many Democrats claimed they were lied to.
Yes, when we went into Iraq we failed to find chemical agents. This, the left told us, was proof that Bush lied just to get into a war. They conveniently ignored the Iraq General, Georges Sada, who said the WMD was moved to Syrian planes that had their seats removed. Hussein was able to use the aircraft under the guise of humanitarian aid to Syria.
There were people from the region who claimed the chemical agents were stored in several locations throughout Syria but this fell on deaf ears as liberals who voted for the use of force claimed that Bush lied about WMD. Even though WMD was only 3/19 of the items in the resolution the die was cast and Bush was a liar.
I wrote a number of times about the chemical agents being moved to Syria. I knew Hussein had them and there was no intelligence showing that he had destroyed them but plenty of evidence that he had moved them. His general confirmed they went to Syria.
Liberals took me to task as they bought into the claims that Bush lied.
Well my friends, chemical agents have been used in Syria. There are accusations flowing from the government and from the rebels with each side blaming the other. That will all be sorted out but one thing is clear, nerve agents were used to kill innocent civilians. To be specific Sarin was used.
Hmm, Sarin. Isn’t that what Saddam Hussein had?
If chemical agents are being used in Syria then where did they come from? I would like the inspectors who are there investigating to have access to all the places where the Syrian government might be storing chemical agents (particularly the places claimed in the information provided years ago) so we can see what kind of markings are on them. My bet is that they will show that those agents came from Iraq.
I also bet they will show that they originated in Russia. I have written in the past that the Russians provided the agents to Iraq and that Russian trucks were the ones seen at the storage sites. The Russians were interested in helping get them out of country before we invaded so they would not be caught. Now the Russians are blocking efforts in the recent investigation into the Sarin use in Syria. The UN is helping block efforts as well.
It would be very interesting to see how this plays out if chemical agents are found and they came from Iraq (if the UN would even report the truth). It would be very interesting to see how many on the left who called George W. Bush a liar would apologize.
Hell, who am I kidding? Barack Obama and his liberal gang of thieves would use the revelations to blame Bush for what happened.
They will do anything to deflect attention from the mess they started in Syria.
That entire mess belongs to Barack Obama. He is responsible for it and he is culpable in the deaths of those who were gassed with Sarin.
Not that you will ever hear it from the Obama media.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, chemical agents, Iraq, lies, Obama, sarin, Syria, WMD
Don’t Clown Around With Obama
Aug 13, 2013 Commentary, Political
A rodeo clown in Missouri has been banned from performing at the Missouri State Fair because he wore a Barack Hussein Obama mask and allegedly asked the crowd if they wanted to see the bull run over Obama (allegedly because the rodeo claims the clown had a mike but others have indicated the rodeo announcer asked the question). The question got plenty of cheers when it was asked and the cheers were even louder when it was repeated.
Rodeo clowns are CLOWNS and they are there to keep riders safe and to clown around with the crowd (pun intended).
That is not the case when the clown wears an Obama mask. You see, when that happens the liberals get their little panties in a knot and talk about how inappropriate it is. Can’t have people making fun of the anointed one, the messiah B. Hussein Obama himself, now can we?
Liberals get all twisted and act as if they are as pure as the driven snow when their messiah is the brunt of a joke. I can only imagine what will happen if a bank robber uses an Obama mask. He will get six months for robbing the bank (just wealth redistribution) and the death penalty for using an Obama mask. Though I am inclined to believe if Obama had a son he would look like the bank robber…
The Democrats in Missouri had to step in and they showed why no one with a brain (and that leaves out the majority that allegedly voted for Obama) takes them seriously. You see, this is no way to act toward a president:
“I am amazed that in 2013, such hatred, intolerance and disrespect towards the President of the United States could take place at the Missouri State Fair. Our fair is supposed to showcase the best of Missouri, instead, it showed an ugly face of intolerance and ignorance to the world.” ~ Rep William Lacy (D-MO)
“If what’s being reported is true, then it’s shameful and it’s unacceptable. The State Fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love. But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse-that somehow it’s ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the President of our great nation. Missouri is better than this, and I expect someone to be held accountable.” ~ Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Politico
Did either of these dim bulbs demonstrate such outrage at the public disrespect and taunting that George W. Bush was subjected to during his tenure? In case any of you have forgotten, Bush was repeatedly compared to a chimp (do that to Obama and you are a racist) and there are a large number of images of Bush as a chimp on the web. There is even a tic-tac-toe game where a chimp (you play the chimp’s part) plays against Bush and if the chimp wins he beat the idiot and if the chimp loses he is degraded for losing to an idiot.
Did any Democrat scream about the intolerance and disrespect? Did any Democrat condemn the message young people were subjected to? Did these two politicians specifically address the issue?
We all know the answer to this.
[note]Anyone find it ironic that Clay said the incident showed an ugly face of intolerance and ignorance when the story is about a mask of Obama?[/note]
But Big Dog, pictures of a chimp are not talking about harm coming to the president. Why, why, why, the clown was talking about a bull running down our messiah B. Hussein Obama. That is different Big Dog, it was all so violent.
Yeah, well listen up little liberal. I will type this slowly so you can keep up. A movie was made about George W Bush being assassinated. The movie was called Death of a President and it was filmed and released while Bush was in office. There was only one Democrat I am aware of who said something negative about the film and that was Hillary Clinton (to their credit CNN and NPR refused to air ads for the movie).
Where were McCaskill and Clay when this movie was released? I would not be surprised if they were in the theater taking delight in watching it while they ate stale popcorn. Regardless of where they were just imagine how they would be acting if such a movie were made about Obama…
So before you liberal bedwetters shed tears over a clown talking about a bull running over Obama remember how you reacted when a movie about Bush being murdered was released. If you were not outraged then you can’t be now. In other words, shut up.
I do not get the uproar. This is America and we are free to mock our leaders. If they don’t want to be mocked then perhaps they should not do anything that warrants being mocked.
I also do not understand why people are upset about the mask. One clown put the mask of another clown on.
Big deal.
Put on your big girl or big boy pants and buck up cupcake.
If you want something to cry about try shedding a tear for the four Americans Obama allowed to be murdered in Benghazi and instead of firing a rodeo clown fire the clown in the White House who is covering up the murders he allowed to take place.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, Bush, clay, Clinton, democrat outrage, mccaskill, missouri, Obama, rodeo clown