In the latest polling regarding the use of military retaliation by the U.S. unilaterally against Syria for chemical weapons use: The vast majority of Americas see the conflict there as a NO WIN situation, and while terrible to witness, like all civil wars, we should stay out of it and stop being the world’s self appointed policeman on this mostly US internal political issue thanks to the President’sability to paint himself into a political corner at home. The vast majority of Americans feel that while the use of chemical weapons, or any WMD, is horrific and immoral in any form, U.S. intervention alone without the full international support and the support of Russia especially is only more likely to make the instability in the Middle East. Russia is Syria’s ally. Russia needs to be held accountable for controlling the regime in Damascus NOT the U.S.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an old saying on the battle field going back to the Art of War by Sun Zhu. There are many others examples in the Middle East where we should supporting the lesser of two evils while working diplomatically to turn the lesser evil into a better world citizen. The world deplores internal civil wars and the killing of innocent people REGARDLESS of the type of weapons used to do the killing. If the Syrian Air Force had carpet bombed that town killing even more, wiping it out, would the world applaud? Is it ok to slaughter 10,000 or by conventional weapons? Should we intervene in every civil war that breaks out in the world? In fact the U.S. should find common ground with Russia and China to give THEM cover to intervene! The U.S. needs to keep out of this unless U.S. security or harm to its people is directly threatened – for example if WMD were about to fall in the hands of radical Islamic extremists sworn to use it against the U.S. and its allies. Its hard to see how this is accomplished by a politically motivated cruise missile strike against targets that are now already hardened or contain hundreds of “human shields” just of the “principle of it” weeks and weeks after the event occurred. This detached “punitive action” which should come from the parent (Russia / China) and not an stranger can only end badly. Think about it… Who should be responsible for punishing the actions of Syria against its own people? Russia or the U.S.? Its not our child.
Once again the ideology of this President that the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government knows what’s good for everyone, both internally and externally of its borders, has to come to a stop. Libertarians in the U.S. need to raise their voices more loudly and the Republican Party needs to embrace more strongly LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES.
The latest POLL from NEWSMAX — YOU CAN ADD YOUR VOTE ON LINE:
Gas weapons in the hands of radical Islamic extremists is a far greater threat to the security of the U.S. and other nations, Russia included, than those same weapons in the hands of the Syrian military. Iraq is a case in point. At least the former dictator did not tolerate Islamic extremism and fought tooth and nail against our greatest threat to world peace and instability. Iran. We have that specter now in Egypt and Libya and even possibly Iraq not to mention Afghanistan. The internal factional conflicts within Islam historically between Sunni and Shia and other historical divisions between the peoples in the Middle East is not our responsibility to solve through our prism of the world. As I recall, even in WWII we did not go it alone! This is also NOT a police action where American lives or assets were being threatened.
Strikes like the one contemplated to somehow “punish” Asad because of an imaginary “Red Line” will only make the region more insecure with potentially the loss of many more lives. we are playing right into the hands of Iran who is just waiting for an excuse to kill Jews. This action could well be the match that lights that explosive tinder box. Why? Because of the ego of one man in the White House? Again… it should be Russia and China’s responsibility to reign in the Assad regime and sanction them for using WMD via the U.N. or themselves unilaterally. Not the U.S. We have no history and understanding of what is really going on there. It will only cause an escalation of conflict as the Isrealis fully understand and they themselves intend to capitalize on for self preservation.
President Obama yesterday signed an executive order to stop deporting children of illegal aliens opening the door for a massive wave of illegal immigration of pregnant women across our southern border in an effort to be given amnesty at some point because their children will have the right to stay in the U.S. Rather than focus on SECURING OUR BORDERS this President, for clearly political purposes, has decided to thumb his nose at our legislative system. This action is so blatantly political that it has all the earmarks of backfiring on him. What if the Republican House now puts together a bill based on Mark Rubio’s vision for handling illegal immigration with a provision similar to his executive order… How can the Democratic led Senate reject bringing it to a vote?
Republicans can turn this into a win for themselves – and with Sen. Marko Rubio (R), as a potential VP running mate, this tactic might just backfire on the President that would be King, Barrack Obama.
Some are wondering if this royal decree might not also apply to himself as many still question if in fact he was actually born in the U.S. Ok…a satirical title and idea? Sure we know, but why not play to the insanity emanating from Washington? It’s this year’s free three ring circus.
President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.
Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue – gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards – the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive…
… As of Friday, the federal government won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children. It is a temporary, de facto implementation of a part of the stalled DREAM Act.
The result: a loud message to Hispanic voters to remember Obama in November.
On gay rights, too, the administration has asked agencies to do less. In February 2011 the Justice Department announced it would not defend DOMA against court challenges — an unusual step for the agency, which typically defends legal challenges to laws on the books. But the 1996 law, which bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriage, appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court via either the 9th or 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
In August, Obama’s DHS announced it would no longer deport the non-citizen spouses of gay Americans — a direct contradiction to DOMA as well.
The tactic has its start in the earliest days of the administration. In October 2009, the DOJ announced it would not prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers in states where it’s legal, despite the state laws contradicting federal law. Federal law generally trumps state law in such matters.
So just how many of you are surprised at this turn of events? Our Prediction: President Obama will have his hands full trying to contain Prime Minister Netenyahu from making a unilateral strike on Iran target sites before the election. Israel also knows that having Obama in the White House is not all that healthy for their country’s security. A strike in late summer early fall will also send oil and gas prices through the roof thus ensuring the defeat of President Obama at the polls while not only disrupting the Iranian’s “peaceful atomic energy program”. The White House must be on pins and needles about what steps the Israelis will now take with or without our support…
Talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over inspections of suspect nuclear sites broke down on Friday, deepening pessimism over the prospects of a negotiated settlement to the international impasse over Tehran’s nuclear aspirations.
Negotiations at the agency headquarters in Vienna were aimed at agreeing the framework for an IAEA investigation into whether Iran had a nuclear weapons programme in the past, something Tehran has denied. The break-down of the talks is likely to further damage the prospects for broader negotiations between Iran and six major powers due to resume in Moscow on 17 June, aimed at finding a compromise over the Iranian uranium enrichment programme and forestalling Israeli military action.
An IAEA statement after the talks expressed “disappointment” with Iranian negotiating tactics, saying the Tehran delegation “raised issues that we have already discussed and added new ones”. The statement said no date had been set for a follow-on meeting.
The failure of the talks is a personal blow to the authority of the IAEA director general, Yukiya Amano, who flew to Tehran to finalise an agreement and returned declaring the deal all but clinched.
At the heart of discussions was the IAEA inspectors’ wish to visit a military site at Parchin as a priority, in order to look into intelligence reports that a special metal chamber had been installed there in 2000 for testing high-explosive components of a nuclear warhead. READ MORE>>>
LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!
Protect your religious liberty and freedom of conscience!
A recent edict by the US Department of Health & Human Services is “literally unconscionable.” It demands that sterilization, abortive drugs and contraception be included and mandated in all company health plans in the U.S. Including those of religious organizations! Conveniently this will go into effect in early 2013 — after the Presidential election under “Obama Care”. This mandate, which includes religious organizations who offer insurance to their employees, is an assault on religious beliefs being imposed upon a religion by the state. Hopefully it will be struck down by the Supreme Court sometime this year… but in the meantime in an unprecedented fashion, Roman Catholic bishops are fighting back with the help of the House of Representatives.
To correct the threats to religious liberty and rights of conscience posed by PPACA (Obama Care), the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467). This measure will ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It is more important than ever that Members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure.
Study the issue & then write to Congress urging support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act here.
Read on to see and hear the thoughtful and articulate video response from one Catholic bishop in the U.S. that should make all of us open our eyes regardless of our faith – or non-faith… (more…)
Obama can’t blame this mess on Bush or the Republican Congress. American soldiers might not be getting killed, but there are plenty of Libyans who are. Still Obama feels he does not need Congressional approval to continue this action and feels NATO and UN approval is enough. ( He sounds more and more like Bush everyday! – Hope and Change – what a joke! )
Question: When did the U.S. Executive Branch become subservient to the UN and NATO and not the American people through our representatives in Congress? Answer: Under President Barack Obama 2011.
TRIPOLI, Libya — NATO acknowledged Saturday that its aircraft had mistakenly hit a column of rebel military vehicles last week near the Libyan oil port of Brega, and early Sunday morning the Qaddafi government showed reporters a destroyed cinder-block house that neighbors and the government said was hit by an errant NATO airstrike in the capital.
In Libya, More Novice Soldiers in Defense of Qaddafi (June 18, 2011)
Times Topic: Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)
Rescue workers searched for survivors amid the rubble.
Two bodies were pulled from the rubble, and at the Tripoli Central Hospital, government officials showed reporters three others, including an infant and a child, who they said were killed in the house.
It was the first time in three months of airstrikes that the Qaddafi government has presented credible evidence of what appeared to be direct civilian casualties of NATO attacks. Although the government has often claimed large numbers of civilian deaths, it has never previously presented bodies or consistent facts about the dead.
The destroyed building was far from any obvious military facility, in the Souq al Juma area, which is known for its hostility to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and some neighbors who said they opposed him nonetheless confirmed the government’s account of an airstrike. Still, journalists visiting the site found no pieces of a bomb. NATO could not be reached for comment, and it was impossible to rule out another explanation.
Charles Krathammer out did himself with this article pointing out the audacity of demogoguery that has been gushing forth from the anointed one’s lips recently. Hypocrisy and double standards not withstanding, it’s hard to avoid getting the distinct feeling that Obama’s speeches are delivered with the basic assumption that his audience is comprised of a bunch of simple minded idiots that will drink whatever flavor of kool-aid he has to offer us on any particular day. Charles Krathammer’s column is spot dead on with his latest observations…
“I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.”
— Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, May?10
Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of autistic and Down syndrome kids? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican Medicare plan would make old folks “die sooner”?
In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just 11 minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”
Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.
The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”
How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.
This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.
Accordingly, the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.
— credits… Charles Krauthammer / Washington Post