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…
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 21, 2011 Political
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, was a big anti war demonstrator during the early 1970s. He lied about his fellow service members and he lied about what they did. He protested and he testified before Congress. Now that he has been a Senator for quite a numbers of years the shoe is on the other foot.
Kerry was home visiting with constituents and they gave him hell for his support of the war in Afghanistan, among other things. I thought the war in Afghanistan was the right war among the loonies on the left. While we were fighting in Iraq during Bush’s time in office we were constantly reminded that Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan.
The Senate and the House have both passed bills for ending the Iraq War, or at least liquidating the American involvement in it. The resolutions, approved by the barest majorities, were underpinned by one unmistakable theme: wrong war, wrong place, distracting us from the real war that is elsewhere.
Where? In Afghanistan. The emphasis on Afghanistan echoed across the Democratic aisle in Congress from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to former admiral and now Rep. Joe Sestak. It is a staple of the three leading Democratic candidates for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It is the constant refrain of their last presidential candidate, John Kerry, and of their current party leader, Howard Dean, who complains “we don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan. That’s where the real war on terror is.” Real Clear Politics
Now that we are fighting more aggressively there, the Democrats don’t seem to feel it is any longer the right war. Kerry supported the war in Afghanistan long before Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm, sent more troops there. Kerry was in favor of the war in Afghanistan while running for president so it is unlikely he has changed his stance but his constituents seem to have. They supported him for the presidency so they must have agreed with his position:
So the one time war protester is getting a taste of his own medicine.
Kerry also apologized for calling a woman who does not believe in global warming a Neanderthal. Kerry said he was referring to people in general who do not believe in global warming.
Some apology. Does not his clarification mean he still thinks the woman is a Neanderthal?
In any event, when the liberals in Massachusetts turn on a liberal, life is good.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 8, 2010 Political
Producer and writer Aaron Sorkin has taken issue with Sarah Palin and her reality show all because Palin shot and killed a caribou in the latest episode. There were some folks who did not like the idea that she killed an animal (which, contrary to what Sorkin says, was for food) and Palin addressed that issue in a Facebook posting before the show ever aired. She said that if those who did not like it sat on leather furniture or wore leather clothing they were hypocrites. This apparently set Sorkin off.
In his piece Sorkin describes Palin’s episode as a snuff show in which she killed an animal for political gain. He claims the animal was not for food but only for her political future (even though Palin said it would provide for her family in the episode**). Sorkin also calls Palin all kinds of names and insults her intelligence (girlie men are always threatened by strong women). To top it off Sorkin calls her a phony pioneer girl.
Phony? As if this limp wristed moron could survive in the wilderness.
In any event, this is a typical unhinged moron from the left who sees everything Palin does through the spectrum of politics. Reading what this moron wrote one might get the idea that Palin had never hunted and only shot this animal to make her appear tough for when the 2012 election. Right.
Remember what the Big Dog said. This is all about the left’s hatred for Palin and nothing more. You see, if Sorkin were actually concerned about “snuff films” he would not be involved in films that have lots of killing in them. And if this moron were concerned about politicians who kill animals for political gain he would have spoken up when that dunderhead John Kerry put on his Elmer Fudd outfit and went goose hunting (and allegedly killed a goose) SPECIFICALLY FOR POLITICAL GAIN:
John Kerry brought his campaign for president to a duck blind here in far eastern Ohio Thursday morning, and while he did manage to clip one goose, he was really aiming for undecided voters in this battleground state.
Senior adviser Mike McCurry was quite direct this week in saying that the two-hour predawn hunting trip was another attempt to get voters to know Kerry, who has had some issues with his so-called likeability factor. Kerry also has been talking about his Catholic faith more, and on Sunday he will give a speech on values. Washington Post
Kerry was also concerned about his low rating with the NRA and how he was perceived in middle America so he went hunting. The goose was clearly killed to help Kerry politically. Since John Kerry is anti gun it is obvious that this was all a ruse.
With Palin it is nothing more than what she has done for years. She is a life member of the NRA and has hunted a lot. And, unlike Kerry at the time of his hunt, Palin is not involved in a campaign for office.
So where was Sorkin back in 2004? Where was this guy who is so outraged at his perception of killing an animal for political gain when John Kerry (allegedly) killed an animal for political gain?
You see, Sorkin is a typical liberal. He gets very upset when a Republican does something but completely ignores the same thing when done by a Democrat. He is also typical in that he is upset over the killing of an animal but has never shown outrage over a woman aborting a baby.
Sorkin also represents a growing number of liberals who are afraid of Palin. They wet their panties when her name is mentioned. She scares them immensely.
This is why they act so irrationally when she is involved in anything.
I also imagine it makes the liberals feel bad that “dumb” ole Sarah Palin, unlike their leader, knows which end of a weapon the round comes out.
I mean, Obama probably thinks gangsters hold handguns sideways because that is how they come out of the box.
**I did not see the episode but I saw the clip of the kill. Palin indicates the animal will provide for the family.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 26, 2010 Political
John Kerry says the Democrats have problems because the voting public is uninformed. This is the elitist Kerry who told college students if they did not study hard and do well they would end up in Iraq (which ignores the large number of military personnel with college degrees). Seems that all the troubles in the world, from Kerry’s viewpoint, are because of the not so smart among us. You are obviously not too bright if you are uninformed and angry at Democrats.
I imagine that Kerry did not consider that many more people than ever are actually informed about what is going on and THAT is why they are angry. People know that the Democrats have not been listening to them. People know that Democrats ignored the will of the public, those they represent, and did what they wanted.
In fact, the anger is there because of uninformed politicians like John Kerry.
He would never believe it because he thinks that people just live in slogans and soundbites and have no depth of knowledge.
“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday. Boston Herald
Oh Johnny boy, people are paying quite a bit of attention and that is why you and your Democrats will get their rear ends handed to them in November. And let me say Johnny, that if people are this angry and they have not been paying attention then you had better hope they never start or things will get really ugly.
We see what is going on, we see how you have ignored us, we see the false claims of racism and the other personal attacks on us and we see that you are not doing what we want you to.
We will also see your rears walking out the door next January.
But I will agree with you John on a little of what you say but I have to reword it. The only reason Democrats have control and Barack Obama won is because people did not pay attention. People were too wrapped up in this messianic BS and hype to see what was going on. The post election questions show that. In fact, the only thing most people paid any attention to was his color. They had to vote for the black man to either show racial solidarity or to alleviate some perceived white guilt.
And yes John, people who are influenced by a simple slogan are morons who need to have their voting rights taken away.
HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE
I think you get the point.
Nothing wrong with a slogan John as long as you are intelligent enough to learn the issues. When your voters are living off the government and can’t articulate any position you hold then you are dealing with the uninformed with which you have a problem.
We call then Democrat voters who, by the way, are as uninformed as the Democrat politicians who pander to them.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 24, 2010 Political
Like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel, John Kerry is not fond of taxes if he has to pay them. He is perfectly OK with voting for tax increases which he has done his entire career but when it comes to paying taxes, well that’s another thing all together. We already know that Kerry does not check the box on his Massachusetts tax form asking that he be taxed at the higher rate but now he has avoided six figures in tax by berthing his new, 7 million dollar yacht, in Rhode Island where he can avoid nearly a half million dollars in taxes up front and about 70,000 dollars in taxes yearly.
Isabel – Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage – was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.
But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.
Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners? Boston Herald
A spokesperson says it is berthed there for maintenance (how often should a new 7 million dollar boat need maintenance).
There is no coincidence here and the maintenance story is a ruse. The man does not want to pay taxes and he has found a way to avoid them. This is typical for the ruling class because they consider themselves better than the rest of us. Taxes are for the serfs, not for the elites who vote to impose them.
This guy is a fraud and is a perfect example of the Democrats who think taxes are a wondeful thing unless they have to pay them.
Of course, they like tax cuts in election years. But then again, hypocrisy reigns supreme among the liberal elite.
Where are the liberals screaming that he can afford to pay the money? Hell, he bought a 7 million dollar boat so he should be able to pay the half million in sales taxes and 70,000 dollar annual tax. He is depriving Massachusetts of money it desperately needs to pay for the bloated health care system and other social programs that are in the hole.
It is, after all, for the children.
Has he no shame? Where is his compassion?
Is he not a patriot? Joe Biden said paying taxes was patriotic so what does that make Kerry?
Scratch that, we already know he is not a patriot by his past anti American activities. Where is sheriff Joe Biden to police this up and make this man a patriot?
Never surrender, never submit.