On this day in 1983, Pres. Ronald Reagan took full responsibility for the October bombing of the Beirut Embassy in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. troops. Contrast that with the lies, stonewalling, and passing the buck of the Obama administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Of course, neither president was directly responsible for the death of American service members overseas; we must not lose sight that both of these attacks were perpetrated by America’s enemies. However the policies of both presidents and the actions of their subordinates certainly played a role and is worth further investigation (in Obama’s case) and discussion.
Reagan wasn’t perfect. No man is. But by taking responsibility for something that happened under his watch, President Reagan displayed a level class that Americans are unlikely to ever see from the man who currently occupies the White House.
I have fought against the restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan under Bush and Obama as part of the counterinsurgency doctrine. To be fair, under the Reagan administration Marines were not allowed to have loaded weapons during their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, and were only allowed to return fire under certain circumstances. Had the Marines pulling security outside the barracks been locked and loaded, then those 241 Marines, sailors, and soldiers probably wouldn’t have died.
After the attack, Reagan withdrew the peacekeeping force. But why send combat troops to a country that poses no significant threat to the United States in the first place? When a president feels it is necessary to handicap our military’s ability to respond to deadly force in a particular theater, then we probably shouldn’t send men with guns in the first place.
In an age of terrorism, I wholeheartedly support counterterrorism. There are plenty of people who not only feel divinely inspired to kill innocent Americans, but also seek to do so. They must be stopped. But when we go beyond intelligence and special operations – putting “boots on the ground” – there has to be a legitimate reason.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Ronald Reagan
A great video from the Republicans on 2008 Obama and 2012 Obama.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama
As discussed yesterday at The US Report, President Obama is peddling a jobs bill that contains elements that may actually be unconstitutional. But there appears to be more to the story.
The American Jobs Act states on page 133 (Section 176) that “A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution…”
This strips state sovereignty and increases dependence upon the Federal government. And if it were to pass, this legislation would open the door for trial lawyers to sue the states in Federal court. Just follow the money.
Here’s what the Eleventh Amendment says:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Basically, this amendment prevents the Federal government from hearing cases brought against a state by a citizen of another state or country. But Congress – and the states themselves if they so choose – can abrogate this Eleventh Amendment protection according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (pg. 376):
Congress can, for example, require the states to waive their immunities as a condition for receipt of federal grants under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
Why would the Federal government need to suspend the Constitution in order to save jobs? And when did the United States become so dependent on the government for jobs in the first place?
President Obama’s proposed abrogation of the Constitution may not actually violate the Constitution, since…
In: Articles, Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, Constitution
President Obama recently invited several NASCAR drivers to the White House to honor their accomplishments on the racetrack, but nearly half declined the invitation.
The invitees are the top finishers from NASCAR’s 2010 Sprint Cup. According to sbnation.com, which is sponsored by Sprint, drivers Greg Biffle, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick and Tony Stewart are not attending due to “schedule conflicts.”
Last year’s champion Jimmy Johnson will be attending however, along with Denny Hamlin, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch (who was originally among those not attending), Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton and Matt Kenseth.
It is entirely likely that this is being over-politicized as NASCAR drivers do have an incredibly busy schedule: meeting with sponsors, fans, photo shoots (which is what Busch had to reschedule), and so on. There is really no off-season in this sport. The federal government has become an unwelcome part in all of our lives over the last few years, but (as of this writing) Uncle Sam is not the largest sponsor in auto racing (they are the largest landowner, healthcare provider, employer, broadband internet provider, etc.).
But that all could change if the Obama administration deems the racing industry “too big to fail.” Then we would no doubt see something like a $500 billion sponsorship of a race team claiming to run on solar power panels – only to go bankrupt in a matter of months. And by then we could hear Carl Edwards thank the ACORN/SEIU team for putting together a great car after winning the Daytona 500.
My advise to the four holdouts is remember “Joe the Plumber” – embarrass the President and dirty political goons will go through your past with a fine-tooth comb, looking for anything that can destroy you. Call your accountants and have them cross the t’s and dot the i’s. Maybe leave your calendar out in a highly visible location with “Meeting with George Soros” or “key Rush Limbaugh’s car” circled on the day of the White House event. Make a point to be seen in a Che Guevara shirt. Get a “Had enough? Vote Democrat” bumper sticker for your NASCAR.
Just in case.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, NASCAR
A friend sent me a link to an article in the U.K.’s Telegraph about the “stunning decline of Barack Obama.” Nile Gardiner lists ten key reasons why he expects why Obama’s presidency is in “serious trouble.”
- The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
- Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
- Obama fails to inspire
- The United States is drowning in debt
- Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
- Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political
- Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
- US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
- President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
- Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Gardiner also states that Obama’s extravagant and out-of-touch presidency resembles the Ancien Régime, which was overthrown during the French Revolution.
It is unfortunate that we must turn to foreign sources for truly objective news. I saw that a recent study on news coverage found that the majority of Obama’s news coverage is positive.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama
Not that it matters, but it appears that Europe doesn’t like Obama any more. From the Telegraph:
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular figure in Europe when he was president, but at least he was respected by European leaders, and feared by his enemies. In contrast Barack Obama is not only disliked abroad, but also increasingly isolated among America’s allies, and viewed as weak by America’s adversaries. So much for Obama’s boast of “restoring” America’s standing in the world.
Maybe “restoring” was a misquote and Obama really said “destroying” America’s standing in the world. Lost in translation, perhaps.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama
More questions, no answers. Obama needs to end this now, so we can either get back to our business, or find a president who doesn’t violate the Constitution he supposedly studied, and swore an oath to uphold.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, natural-born citizen
While introducing the new National Security Strategy, President Obama recently declared that the “War on Terror” is over. More accurately, war as we know it is over. Through soft power, the United States has reinvented conflict into a feel good, region-building contingency operation where soldiers become ambassadors rather than warriors – seeking to win over our enemies rather than defeat them.
“We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out,” it states. “Yet this is not a global war against a tactic – terrorism…”
First off, can Obama name one example how his administration has done anything to delegitimize Islamic terrorists?
I do agree that one can’t declare war on terrorism (calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies … [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals) any more than you can declare war on L-shaped ambushes. I concede that the Global War on Terror is not the best name for our current conflict. But the same argument could be made about World War II. Ultimately, what the war is called is pointless. The important thing is that it is brought to a quick, decisive, and favorable end, and as of yet there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
“… or a religion – Islam.”
This is clearly not a war against Islam. The fact that our leaders continue to bring this up is an insult to everyone’s intelligence, and pandering to our enemies. Members of the Islamic religion – the jihadists – are at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not. But if one were to read the Qur’an, one would find that jihad is a pillar of Islam, not something that was taken out of context by misunderstanders of the so-called “religion of peace” or created by George Bush and Dick Cheney in order to justify their diabolical scheme. If you doubt me, see for yourself.
“Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instill fear in other peoples but through our capacity to speak to their hopes.”
The puss-nut diplomats and think tankers that came up with this s–t should be called pirates and turned in to the Russians. Since before Moses was a corporal, civilizations protected themselves by instilling “fear” among those who seek to subjugate or eliminate their culture – as jihadists do today. The fact that Obama doesn’t want to “instill fear” in jihadists should be a matter of grave concern for Americans.
But possibly the worst thing is that the National Security Strategy Obama was introducing resurrects the sovereignty stripping, military weakening, massive income redistributing Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). If you treasure the Constitution and enjoy the idea of our own elected officials running our country and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, then it would behoove you to learn about the LOST and prepare to fight off the administration’s efforts to ratify this treaty.
Remember, We the People ARE the government. Our elected officials are merely our servants.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, Law of the Sea Treaty
I would LOVE for this controversy to be put to rest, but more questions continue to arise surrounding our president’s Constitutional eligibility to serve.
Now, researchers claim that Obama’s social security number was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979. Records state that he held a job at Baskin Robbins in Hawaii before his purported number was released. This can mean many things, all of which are bad if true.
But will the media report on this? No. And anyone who dares even bring up the subject is immediately labeled a kook conspiracy theorist simply for being a critical thinker.
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, natural-born citizen
In the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web Today article, James Taranto writes that the “extreme elements” President Obama warned us about have indeed been incited to violence. Just not the ones Obama may have had in mind:
“In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite ‘extreme elements’ to violence,” the Associated Press reports from Ann Arbor, Mich.
Two thousand miles away, another AP dispatch reports, there occurred an example of exactly what the president was warning about:
Close to 20 businesses were damaged after what started as a peaceful immigrants’ rights march in downtown Santa Cruz [Calif.] turned violent, requiring police to call other agencies for help, authorities said.
Police spokesman Zach Friend said an estimated 250 people started marching through the city around 10:30 p.m. Saturday.
It was a harmonious but “unpermitted and unsanctioned event,” he said, until some in the crowd started breaking windows and spraying paint on retail shops that line the downtown corridor.
Friend said he wasn’t sure if the damage was caused by people marching in support of immigrants’ rights, or if the group was “infiltrated by anarchists.”
Anarchy signs were spray-painted on some of the buildings.
“They’re a group of people who seem to fancy themselves as revolutionaries, but what they really are are a group of morons,” Friend said.
You’ve got to love the way the AP describes this: It started as a peaceful march but “turned violent.” It was totally harmonious “until some in the crowd started breaking windows.” And the window breakers might have just been infiltrators!
Compare this with the lead paragraph of the AP’s March 20 dispatch on the anti-ObamaCare tea-party protests:
House Democrats heard it all Saturday–words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.
The claims of racial epithets have since been disputed and were never substantiated, but let’s give the AP the benefit of the doubt and assume that at the time, the reporter knew of no reason to doubt the word of the congressmen making the claims.
Even so, had the tea-party protesters gotten the Santa Cruz treatment, the AP would have noted that the rally was completely nonviolent, even if it featured some ugly words; that there was no ugliness at all until the protest “turned ugly”; and that the people who (allegedly) shouted the ugly words might well have been infiltrators.
If the Santa Cruz protesters had gotten the tea-party treatment, by contrast, the AP would have described the event simply as a riot and would not have distinguished between the peaceful protesters and the violent few who might be infiltrators anyway. What’s more, conservative politicians and commentators would be sounding a constant refrain–echoed by the mainstream media–that politicians are inciting the violence with “antigovernment” statements like this one, reported April 23 by CBS News:
President Obama suggested today that the immigration bill expected to be signed into law in Arizona is a “misguided” piece of legislation that “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
We don’t think that journalists should give the Santa Cruz protesters the tea-party treatment or the tea partiers the Santa Cruz treatment. Both sides ought to get the same treatment–fair treatment–from those whose job is to cover the news impartially.
As for Obama, his efforts to demonize the opposition are unseemly and unpresidential. Given the breadth of his policies’ unpopularity, they amount to an attack on the majority of Americans. That seems likely they will prove politically unwise as well.