Sep 19, 2013 Political
The President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and of the militia when it is called into federal service. It is an important marriage of the concept of civilian control of the military and was designed by our Founders to keep the military in check because the Founders were suspicious of standing armies.
Samuel Adams put it this way in 1768:
“Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it”
And Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated:
“standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”
The Founders established a Constitution that gave all three branches of government some portion of control over the military so that no one branch could use the military for its own agenda. For example, the Legislative raises and supports the Army and Navy and provides its funds and rules. It also has the authority to declare war.
The Executive enforces the rules established by the Legislative and has control over how they are used; the Commander in Chief commands them. These checks are supposed to keep us from rash decisions about war and quick use of our armed forces.
This has played out recently with the Syrian chemical agent use issue.
The Syrian issue has shown more than the Constitutional conflict. The crisis has also shown an uneasy relationship between Obama and the nation’s military leaders.
The military, while declaring it is prepared to execute any order given (I assume they mean any lawful order), has also expressed displeasure at a strike that would allegedly be punitive and have no clear goals. There is worry that things could escalate and require a larger response or the movement of troops into the area.
The article points out that there is a feeling among the leaders that the military has been burned with half measures. There is disgust over the way Iraq has been handled and there is concern over Afghanistan.
The military, in other words, has lost faith in its civilian leader.
This should come as no surprise as Obama (who appoints many people who feel as he does) is not a fan of the military. He is a typical liberal and has a dislike and a distrust of the men and women in uniform. He has never served and he has never been a leader.
There is weakness at the top and the military can see it.
It must have frosted many of our leaders to see Putin wax Obama’s ass over Syria. The military does not like to see a foreign leader’s footprint on its Commander’s ass.
While many people looked to Obama to lead them out of the desert and into the Promised Land they are now seeing that Obama cannot lead.
George Bush once said that history would make its decision about him.
Members of the military seem to bringing that sentiment home as many report that, unlike Obama, “…Bush had his stuff together.” They report that when he made a call, whether good or bad, at least he was making it.
History seems to have arrived sooner than one might have thought.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Obama took charge of people who did not want him to begin with and he has done nothing to boost their confidence in him.
They probably feel like I do. Obama sees the military as his pawns.
And they don’t think he knows how to play the game.
Never surrender, never submit.
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?
Never surrender, never submit.
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.
Never surrender, never submit.
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.
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.
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.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 12, 2012 Commentary
Barack Obama is certain that the GOP will cave and raise tax rates on the wealthy, defined as those who make more than 250k a year. He might be right because the GOP has a history of caving in. For some reason the party has not figured out it will get blamed no matter what and it continues to try to appease and give up in hope that people will like them and not blame them.
Who gives a rip how people perceive you? If you don’t cave and things get better Obama will get credit and the GOP will be seen as obstructionists. If they cave and Obama gets what he wants and things do not improve the GOP will be blamed. We know this is how it has been throughout history and we also know that Obama is not capable of taking responsibility. He blames everyone but himself for any problem (but he takes all credit for anything good).
Let’s make it clear right now. Barack Obama does not care one iota about doing what is best for the country. His focus is on destroying the GOP. He wants to make political moves that will paint the GOP into a corner so he can score points and he cares not how it affects the nation.
If the GOP caves and raises tax rates on the wealthy then Obama will portray it as an admission from the right that the lower tax rates enacted under George Bush (but only the ones on the rich) were the reason for the fiscal problems. He will say that the Republicans are admitting to it and that is why they had to raise the tax rates. This is already the narrative as Obama claims things were wonderful under Bill Clinton when tax rates were higher. He does not realize that the Clinton years were sleight of hand. He also fails to see that everyone had higher tax rates and that spending was much lower. We still spent too much and we still had deficits but they were nowhere near as bad as they are now.
The Obama plan will net maybe about 100 billion a year over ten years. We are over budget by more than a TRILLION dollars a year (and have been each year of Obama’s occupation). The math does not add up. Obama wants a ten year tax increase equal to the amount he is over budget in a single year.
The problem is not the amount of money coming in; it is the amount going out that is the problem.
We could raise revenue by lowering tax rates on corporations and making a more favorable environment for them to hire employees. If we get millions of people working again then there will be millions more people paying taxes. If we revised the tax code to institute a flat tax then everyone would pay a fair share for the country and everyone would have, to quote Barack Obama, skin in the game.
Half of wage earners pay no federal taxes and the top half pay for the nation. Yes, those in the bottom pay state taxes (in some states) and they pay Social Security and Medicare. Those are called taxes but the reason these programs were started was as a way for people to save for their own retirement. They have morphed into social programs that are nothing more than Ponzi schemes. In any event, these taxes are levied on people for their own retirement. An 11% tax on all earnings from all wage earners could pay the bills and eliminate the need to collect a separate SS and Medicare tax.
The GOP should not cave on this issue. Who cares about the fiscal cliff? The people in Congress along with Barack Obama decided two years ago that they would strike a deal that would force the sides to come together and work something out or draconian cuts would take place and taxes would increase on everyone. Well, they played games, worried about the election and ignored the issue for two years. Now the table is set and the conditions they ALL agreed to are about to come to fruition.
Let them. No deal is better than a bad deal, period.
Let the taxes on everyone go up. Let the SS tax go back to where it was. Cut Defense and let budget cuts across the government take place. Everyone will be affected and those who voted for Obama can feel the pain along with everyone else.
While we are at it we can turn off all the Obamaphones to save some money.
The GOP is worried about how it will be perceived by people not in its base if it does not cave in and let Obama raise the tax rates of the wealthy.
It better worry about how the base will react if the tax rates go up. Tick off the base and you will never win again no matter how many Democrats you make happy.
Ask John McCain how pleasing Democrats works out…
The low information entitlement Obama voters will never support Republicans. That would require work, thought and the ability to learn.
Keep in mind that Romney lost because he said that his plan would put people to work. 51% of the voters said the hell with that and voted to ride the gravy train of welfare.
Never surrender, never submit.