Tag: Assad

The Syria Situation: Obama, the Democrats, and the Vichy Republicans Vs. America

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

obamaburningconstitutionAs I was riding with my non-political bride to work yesterday, I was telling her about the goings on in Washington, concerning inserting us into a Civil War in Syrian, just so the Manchurian Candidate can save face, and at the same time, possibly fulfill promises made to the Muslim Brotherhood during their visits to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as the guy who promised to “stand with the Muslims should the political winds blow in an ugly direction”.

I said,

Honey, Obama and Congress are going to get us involved in Syria, even when 80% of the country does not want us there.

My bride replied,

Since when have the people ever had a choice, when we went to war?

She had a point. Usually, such decisions are made in the Halls of Power. However, the President and Congress usually seek the consent of the people before they send our Brightest and Best off to battle.

Not this time. And, as nationalreview.com reports, the backlash shows why.

Arizona congressman Matt Salmon’s constituents have called his office 500 times about Syria, he tells National Review Online in an interview, but only two callers have expressed support for intervening there. “This is not hyperbole!” he says emphatically.

And Salmon himself is firmly against authorizing a strike. “I don’t see any national-security imperative for our country at all. Both sides in this equation are bad actors.” He also notes that Obama has been unable to form an international coalition and hasn’t laid out an overall objective for a missile strike. “Other than saving face for the president, I don’t understand what we would be doing,” he says.

Further, Salmon doubts the intervention will be brief. “Nobody believes this is going to be a couple surgical strikes,” he says.

Salmon agrees the dynamics of the vote are likely to mirror the July vote on an amendment from Representative Justin Amash to reign in the NSA’s broad surveillance powers, except the vote against authorizing Syrian intervention is likely to have more support. The authorization “will fail by 20 votes,” he predicts.

Salmon praised President Obama for coming to Congress for authorization, but he fears whether the president will abide by the will of the legislature. It would be a constitutional crisis if Obama overrode the will of Congress on Syria, he says, describing that scenario as the “most significant flouting of separation of powers in this nation, if this happens.”

Salmon is part of the right flank of the GOP conference, someone who is deeply frustrated with Speaker John Boehner’s unwillingness to use the upcoming continuing-resolution fight to draw a line in the sand over Obamacare funding.

He also sees the Syria fight as part of a larger battle for the heart of the GOP’s foreign-policy soul. The lessons of Iraq, but also the “past 30 or 40 years” are that “we should be a lot more cautious.” Of the Iraq War, launched by Republican president George W. Bush, he says “We’ve spent countless lives and dollars, and for what?” Salmon says that his fellow Republicans who weren’t in office during the Bush years were more likely to have learned those lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than those who were in D.C. to authorize them.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee rammed through their resolution on a 10 – 7 vote, allowing Dinghy Harry Reid to bring it up for a floor vote as early as next Wednesday. The Senate Resolution has plenty of loopholes in it for Obama, including the authorization to put “boots on the ground”.

Sen. Ted Cruz was interviewed earlier yesterday on The Blaze Radio. He remarked,

“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

…“It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations because he drew a red line, and, essentially, the bluff was called,” Cruz said.

Cruz said of nine major groups of rebels fighting in Syria, at least seven had ties to Al Qaeda, and a strategy from Obama that would arm those groups “makes no sense whatsoever.”

“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you,” Cruz said.

About that “Red Line”…

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”

On Monday, August 20, 2012, at an impromptu press conference, speaking about Assad and Syria, the Prevaricator-in-Chief said,

We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”

Pantalones en fuego.

Lt. Col. Allen West said the following about this situation on his Facebook Page, yesterday,

Listening to President Obama in Sweden saying he never set a red line and that his credibility isn’t on the line, but rather the credibility of America, Congress, and the International community. It never ceases to amaze me how Obama never takes any responsibility for his actions. He is the leader of the United States of America and he sets the tone, not Joe and Jane. As a leader, he did nothing for all these months and now wants to enjoin everyone in his abject failure and abdication of accountability. I am not buying into Obama’s weak attempt of guilt-tripping us. Mr. President, you have not earned anyone’s respect to follow you, May I remind you of the result of your unilateral actions in Libya? Also, is it not perplexing that within the last 6 years, Pelosi, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all sat with and praised Assad, but now they want to blow him up?

To summarize, the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States, have become, in essence, Breznev and the old Soviet Politboro.

It does not matter what Americans, the people whom they are supposed to be serving, want. It is all about them.

If the actual Conservatives in Congress don’t stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama, and the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans in Congress,  NO, we will be intervening in a Civil War on the other side of the world on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

And, this is all happening less than a week before September 11th.

The actions of this President and this Congress, by attempting to go to war on behalf of the MB and al Qaeda, dishonors the memories of the 3,000 Americans who died that horrible day, now almost 12 years ago.

They should all be ashamed.

Until He Comes, KJ 

The Syria Situation: Time to Put “The Maverick” Out to Pasture

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics7 Comments

McCainObamaJohn McCain, the Republican Party’s ill-advised 2008 Presidential Candidate, has become the Poster Boy for Senility.

As America stands on the precipice of Word War III, “Maverick” is prancing around like a show pony, for President Barack Hussein Obama, and an all-too-willing dhimmi for the Muslim Brotherhood and their off-shoot, al Qaeda.

Yesterday morning, Senator McCain made the suggestion that Fox and Friend’s Brian Kilmeade was Islamophobic. Kilmeade had informed McCain that Radical Islamists had shouted “Allahu Akbar” as their rockets hit government offices in Syria.

“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda…Moderates? Are you kiddin’ .me?

Per pjmedia.com…

One of the English translators of the great 14th century Muslim jurist (d. 1350) Ibn Qayyim’s “The Way to Patience and Gratitude” opts for “Allah is Greater” as the specific translation of Allahu Akbar. On page 463, the following explanation is provided:

…I preferred using “the Greater” to “the Greatest”… Allahu Akbar literally means, “Allah is Greater” with the comparative mode. Yet, this does not mean that He (Glory be to Him) is not the Greatest, nor does it mean that there is anything that is put in comparison with Him. This is because when the Muslim says it, he means He is “Greater” than anything else, which, consequently, means He is the Greatest. This use gives more influence. This may be why it is used in Arabic this way, otherwise it should have been used as “Allahu al-Akbar”, in the superlative mode. Surely, Allah Knows best.

“Allahu Akbar” is heard every time a Muslim Terrorist commits an act of violence.

After 9/11, the FBI released a letter reportedly handwritten by the hijackers and found in three separate copies on 9/11—at Dulles, at the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta’s suitcase. It included a checklist of final reminders for the 9/11 hijackers. An excerpt reads: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

When in March 2002 Maryam Mohammad Yousif Farhat of Hamas, popularized as “Umm Nidal” (and subsequently elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council) learned that her 17-year-old son had been killed on a suicide mission in which he killed five teenagers, she celebrated by proclaiming “Allahu Akbar!” and giving out boxes of halva and chocolates. In 2003, when Imam Samudra became the second Bali bomber from a violent Islamist group to be sentenced to death for his role in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, Samudra greeted his sentence with chants of “Allahu Akbar”.

In 2004, in an execution video of Nick Berg being beheaded in Iraq, as one man sawed off Berg’s head the other captors shouted: “Allahu Akbar!”. And in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, a group of radical Islamists who were convicted of plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey had videotaped themselves shooting weapons and shouting Allahu Akbar. In 2008, Aafia Siddiqui yelled “Allah Akbar” as she allegedly fired at U.S. interrogators.

During the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, witnesses reported that gunman Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. And Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad smiled and said “Allahu Akbar” after receiving a life sentence in 2010 for his attempted bombing.

During the incident aboard American Airlines Flight 1561, the person attempting to bash his way into the cockpit was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar”. Mohammed Merah recorded himself shouting Allahu Akbar as he killed three French paratroopers in the 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings.

Senator, you sure don’t hear Christians running around screaming “Thank God!” as they are blowing themselves up and killing people, do you?

I know that you had a long day yesterday, Maverick, but shouldn’t you have been paying attention to the Senate Hearings concerning  going to war, err. I mean having a “limited engagement” with Syria? I mean, after all, that’s your job, isn’t it?

Senility is a horrible thing.

Why on earth are you supporting intervening in Syria, on behalf of a bunch of Muslim Terrorists, John?

Perhaps…you are just repaying them for their support.

Back in 2008, the BBC reported that

Supporters of al-Qaeda have said they would prefer Republican candidate John McCain to win the US election because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a message broadcast on the password-protected al-Hesbah site, the group said they would also welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US because that would make a McCain win more likely.

In an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain’s flagging campaign, the group said that if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the US, militarily and economically, the “impetuous” Republican presidential candidate is the better choice.

“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,” the message said.

“Then, al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”

“If al-Qaeda carries out a big operation against American interests,” it said, “this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it.”

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, had no immediate comment.

As an official “Wacko Bird”, i.e., Conservative, I would like to say that Progressive Republicans, like John McCain, and his pet dog, Lindsey Graham, are one of the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is the President of these United States.

Not only are Progressive Republicans, like “The Sunshine Boys”, and Obama’s golfing buddy, Cryin’ John Boehner, weak and ineffectual, if they had any tes…err…intestinal fortitude whatsoever, that would be jumping on America’s scandal-ridden Administration with both feet. Instead, they’re acting like the wussified Country Club Elite that they are…whether they are reaching across the aisle to intervene on behalf of these Syrian [al Qaeda] Rebels or trying to pass “Immigration Reform”, which will do nothing but add new Democratic Voters to the rolls.

It’s getting more and more difficult to tell the Republican Leadership from the Democratic Leadership.

Straight talk, from Conservative American Leaders like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, and Lt. Col. Allen West, is what America needs to hear, not rhetoric about “America’s responsibility to bomb Assad”, “sharing the wealth” or “social justice”. And, we especially do not need for Vichy Republicans like Juan McAmnesty to continue sucking up to our enemies, foreign and domestic.

The resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC is doing more than enough of that, all by himself.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Syria Situation: Tyrants and Turncoats and RINOs…Oh, My!

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

kerryassaddinnerMay I ask you something? If somebody is a tyrant and a dictator who hates your country with a passion,, and you were a sitting United States Senator, would you be having a “couples dinner” with him?

Well, back in 2011, as this picture which I have posted shows, that is exactly what our present Secretary of State John F. (I served in Vietnam) Kerry, did.

In fact, later in 2011, speaking at a think tank, Kerry said,

Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.

The thing is, Kerry, by 2011, had a well-established history with Syrian President Assad, per David Horowitz’s discoverthenetworks.org…

Since the early 2000s, Kerry has been the federal government’s highest-ranking apologist for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Indeed it was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration’s attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after its courtship of him ended in failure in 2003; after Bush repeatedly accused Syria of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere; and after the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafiq Hariri in a car bombing most likely orchestrated by the Assad regime.

In January 2009, just days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, Kerry was sent to Syria as part of a policy review by an Obama administration looking to establish new relationships with countries the Bush administration had considered hostile. (This was the first of five trips Kerry would make to Syria between 2009 and 2011.)

During the January 2009 trip, Kerry listened to Bashar Assad advise him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions,” and that future relations between the U.S. and Syria should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of Middle East issues and interests. In return, Kerry used the occasion to bash the former administration. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said.

A year later, Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sat down once again with Assad. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” he said in April 2010. “Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest … in having a very frank exchange on any differences [and] agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” And once again, he called on Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

In November 2010, disclosures of diplomatic cables by the WikiLeaks website revealed that Kerry had been busy undermining Israel as well: He had told leaders in Qatar that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria, and that the capital of a Palestinian state should be established in East Jerusalem, as part of the “peace process.”

Now, in 2013, just last week, in the nationally-televised speech his boss did not have the nerve to make, Secretary of State, John Kerry, said,

In an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do — or not do — matters in real ways to our own security. Some cite the risk of doing things. We need to ask what is the risk of doing nothing.

It matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will.

President Barack Hussein Obama and SOS John Kerry are playing a very dangerous game. Obama met with Senate RINO’s John “Juan McAmnesty” McCain, and his pet dog, Lindsey “Tiddie” Graham, trying to convince them to, once again, betray their party, and their nation.

The “Sunshine Boys” held a press conference after the meeting. Lt. Col. Allen West was watching, and made this observation:

Watched Senators McCain and Graham’s press conference after their meeting with President Obama on the subject of Syria. It seems the tagline to be used is ‘degrade Assad and upgrade the resistance.’ I hate to be the one to ruin the party, but this administration did exactly that in Libya and never considered the unintended consequences. Now in Libya we have a proliferation of Islamist forces who are training terrorist insurgents to head to Syria, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, as well as a consulate attack resulting in the death of four Americans, one being an Ambassador. In Egypt we ‘deposed’ Mubarak and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood and the unintended consequences are a civil war in Egypt and increased persecution of the Coptic Christians. So here we go again with the Obama administration, and useful tools from Congress, embarking America on a nebulous endeavor in the Middle East without consideration of the untended consequences. The opposition in Syria are Islamists supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration has not supported the Free Syrian Army under COL Riad. NO, to any US military action in Syria. The Obama administration has a confused Middle East policy and has shown ineptness in understanding the second and third order effects.

Indeed.

As I have written before, I believe that Obama has made promises to the Muslim Brotherhood and its off-shoots like al-Qaeda. And, as we all know, he certainly doesn’t care what happens to Israel.

As for Juan the Maverick and his faithful dog, Tiddie, they are two full of their own self-importance and superior intellect, like the rest of the GOP Moderate Elite are, to realize that they are putting our entire nation at risk.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer called this while situation “Amateur Hour”.

Given the fact that there is plenty of amateurish behavior to go around, I would say that it is more like “The Gong Show”.

And, we desperately need Jaye P. Morgan to ring the Gong.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Syria Situation: “For, I Have Promises to Keep”…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics10 Comments

michelleobama2You’re the President of the United States. Over the past few years, as part of Smart Power!, and your promised outreach to the Muslim World, you have met several times with representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood and other Radical Muslim Terrorist groups. Over course, no one will ever know that, as a judge has now ruled that the White House Visitors’ Log may remain private and sealed from view.

You recently announced that President Assad of Syria had released chemical weapons on his own people, and, in the process, he crossed the “thin red line” that you warned him about crossing, several months ago.

So now, you are ready to sooth your bruised ego by launching U.S. Navy Missiles into Syria, in what you euphemistically refer to as “a surgical strike”.

In order to accomplish your goal. you sought to gather support from America’s European Allies, the UK, France, and Germany.

German told you to go jump. Then, England’s Parliament formed an Amen Chorus, backing up what Germany said, much to the chagrin of Prime Minister Cameron. That leaves you with France, who may or may not desert you.

Given their War Record, it’s even money whether they will stand by you, or drop their rifles, in the manner in which they always do..

If you are Barak Hussein Obama, you are asking yourself why you cannot get any support from America’s traditional allies.

Well, Mr. President, perhaps these other world leaders do not think that throwing over Assad to replace him with an al Qaeda-led government is  a good idea.

And, they would be right.

The problem for Obama is the fact that he has acted like a horse’s rear on the world stage. His alligator mouth has written a check that his humming bird rear end cannot cash.

You thought that you were a beloved president. Then, you saw the poll which shows that 8o % of Americans oppose your proposed attack on Libya.

That’s a bummer, because during the trips which the Radical Muslim Leaders made to the White House. you promised them “things”, such as your support for Arab Spring. of which the overthrow of Assad in Syria is simply another “show of democracy”. (*COUGH*COUGH*)

You know in your heart, that, if you take out Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda will “owe you” and therefore, be willing to come to the Negotiation Table, perhaps gaining you another Nobel Peace Prize.

So, you go on TV on Saturday, and tell the world, that you are going to let Congress decide whether to attack Syria, or not.

Even though, you are

…leaving the door open to moving ahead with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it, adding to the confusion over the president’s evolving position.

…One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.

Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.

Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.

The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them.

However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Fox News, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.

Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.

This is what is known as a political ploy, boys and girls. Obama does not care what Congress thinks. He has already made promises to his new “Allies” which he intends to keep.

Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin  nailed it yesterday, as she usually does, during this post on her Facebook Page:

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

‘Cuda is right. America has no vital interest in inserting ourselves into a Middle Eastern Civil War, in which there are no “Good Guys”.

HOWEVER, PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DOES.

May God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama/Syria: Declaring War By Executive Order

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamacarterSo, here we are, Americans. Sitting on the precipice, looking down into the Abyss, of a possible World War III. President Barack Hussein Obama’s Smart Power! has been a colossal failure, if its purpose was to keep the peace in the Middle East. If  The purpose of Obama’s Smart Power was replacing Moderate Muslim Leadership with Radical Islamacists, through violent revolution, the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians, and the loss of scores of human lives, then Smart Power! has been an unqualified success.

Now the Leader of America’s Regime, wants to involve us in the Civil War happening in Syria, because their president has been accused of launching a chemical attack against his own citizens.

Just a thought: If he goes through with this, what is Obama going to say if it turns out that al Qaeda launched the chemical attack? “Oops?”

A big problem, besides the fact that we do not need to be doing this, is,  the fact that Obama is Declaring War by Executive Order.

As you may know, if you took 9th Grade Civics class, like I did, Congress must authorize war.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says “The Congress shall have the power … To declare war…”

Article II, Section 2 says “The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…”

Congress declared war:

In 1812 against Great Britain (War of 1812)

In 1846 against Mexico (Mexican-American War)

In 1898 against Spain (Spanish-American War)

In 1917 against Germany and Austria-Hungary (World War I)

In 1941 against Japan, Germany, Italy; in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania (World War II)

Undeclared Wars:

There have been numerous undeclared wars in which the United States was engaged in military operations, but here are a few examples:

President John Adams asked Congress for legislation to protect American shipping, as American relations with France had deteriorated in 1798 to the point where the French navy had seized more than 300 American commercial ships. This was after the start of the French Revolution and was during a time of war between England and France.

President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to pass legislation to protect American commercial ships against pirates from Tripoli in 1802; President James Madison did the same in 1815 against pirates from Algeria; the U.S. Congress authorized President James Monroe to use armed vessels to protect American shipping from pirates in the Caribbean and Latin American waters and he issued the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

There were numerous wars fought against Native Americans.

U.S. military forces were used numerous times such as Commodore Perry carrying a letter from U.S. President Millard Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan and the opening of Japan to U.S. trade in 1853-1854; in the Boxer Rebellion in China 1900-1901; wars in Central America, etc.

Obama might want to consider what he is about to do, bypassing Congress and waging war on Syria. Public Support for “The Syrian War” is three times lower than it was for the beginning of the War in Vietnam.

And, with good reason. As I posited the other day, there are no good guys in the Syrian Situation.

The certifiable Former Democratic Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich,  spoke to thehill.com, the other day. And, it a moment of remarkable (for him) lucidity, he claimed,

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.

Kucinich also said President Obama would be violating the Constitution if he doesn’t get congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria.

Kucinich retired last year after 16 years in the House when his Cleveland district was redrawn and he lost his primary. He led the fight against President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and joined nine other lawmakers in suing Obama over his intervention in Libya two years ago.

Kucinich raised doubts about rebel forces’ allegations that Assad’s forces used poison gas to kill more than 1,300 people last week. He said the administration is “rushing” to what could becoming “World War Three” based on questionable evidence.

“This is being used as a pretext,” he said. “The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?”

Why, Mr. Kucinich, it tells this American, that Obama has been ready to do this for a long while now, quite possibly since the start of Arab Spring.

Back in May of 2011, during the zenith of Arab Spring, foxnews.com reported that

After popular uprisings overthrew regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrian government has used deadly force to quell demonstrations inside its borders. So far, the U.S. has shown no inclination to intervene militarily there, as it has to stop the advances of strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya.

But Syria pushed the envelope over the weekend, with reports showing that Palestinians living in Syria were bused to the border with Israel in the Golan Heights, where demonstrations and violence broke out.

Asked about the incident, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad of “inciting” the protests to distract attention from demonstrations in Syria — a tactic he claimed would not work on the U.S.

Carney said Tuesday the U.S. was looking at additional measures to push Syria toward listening to its people.

“We are looking at ways to put pressure on the Syrian government … to pressure it so it ceases the violence against its own people and engages its people in legitimate dialogue,” Carney said.

While the White House is insisting that this action would not be “regime change”, it certainly sounds like Obama has been in favor of getting Syria “in line” with the other Middle Eastern countries, who were, like Egypt, taken over by Radical Muslim Groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The concern raised by Kucinich is very real.If Obama’s strategy is to open the way for the Radical Muslim “Rebels” to take over Syria, with our help, then wouldn’t that be aiding and “abetting the enemy”?

Radical Muslims hate us, “The Great Satan”. What is Obama hoping to gain by lobbing a few strategic air strikes in Assad’s general direction? Certainly not fear.

As Democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton found out the hard way. Radical Muslims are not easily intimidated. 

After Carter’s failed Foreign Policy  debacles,it took President Ronald Reagan shooting a missile into Anwar Gadhafi’s bedroom, which shut him up for 25 years, to convince the Muslims that we meant business.

And, later on, it was President Clinton’s less-than-effective Foreign Policy ,which was the primary factor in the escalation of the growth of Radical Islam, leading up to the worst Terrorist Attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, on that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately for us, I do not believe that Obama has ever studied Carter and Clinton’s failed Foreign Policy efforts, because he sure does seem determined to repeat them.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

America On the Brink of War: Will Syria Be Obama’s Vietnam?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2I’m getting the feeling of Deja Vu…all over again.

News Outlets are trumpeting the warning that, within the next few days, Obama and his Administration are about the plunge the United States into the middle of a Civil War, happening within the Middle Eastern Country of Syria.

According to abcnews.go.com,

The White House says there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime is responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Syria that is said to have taken place earlier this week.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts,” a senior administration official tells ABC News, “There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

White House officials also point out the attack was on rebel-held territory and apparently done using rockets that the rebels do not possess.

After reports that Syria’s regime will allow UN inspectors to access the site of the attack, the senior administration official suggested the move may be too late, after “the regime’s persistent shelling” has “significantly corrupted” evidence in the area.

“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN–five days ago. At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible,” the official said.

The president has ordered his national security team to draw up possible strike options on Syria, but there is a divide in the White House on how forcefully to respond, although another official told ABC News if there is a strike, it must be “timely” — done soon enough to prevent another chemical attack.

However, the White House does not want to act alone. U.S. officials are back channeling through the United Nations to see if Russia could be convinced to agree to a resolution.

If there is no UN authorization, the United States would lead any possible strike, but, a senior official told ABC News “we do not want to do anything on our own.” U.S. allies must commit both “resources” and “political will” the official said.

Didn’t Vietnam start out as a “U.N. Action”?

Obama is determined to put us right in the middle of another country’s Civil War.  And the problem with this one is…there are no “Good Guys”.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

But, hey, no worries. We have the mighty, mighty, Secretary of State John F. “I served in Vietnam” Kerry on our side. Lord knows, Sec. Heinz…err…I mean Kerry, will take a hard stand with both sides of the conflict in Syria and straighten things out.

And, if you believe that, I have a scholarship available for you at the Meghan McCain School of Political Punditry.

You see, David Horowitz’s discoverthenewworks.org  reports that Sec. Kerry and Syrian President Assad go way back…

Since the early 2000s, Kerry has been the federal government’s highest-ranking apologist for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Indeed it was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration’s attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after its courtship of him ended in failure in 2003; after Bush repeatedly accused Syria of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere; and after the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafiq Hariri in a car bombing most likely orchestrated by the Assad regime.

In January 2009, just days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, Kerry was sent to Syria as part of a policy review by an Obama administration looking to establish new relationships with countries the Bush administration had considered hostile. (This was the first of five trips Kerry would make to Syria between 2009 and 2011.)

During the January 2009 trip, Kerry listened to Bashar Assad advise him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions,” and that future relations between the U.S. and Syria should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of Middle East issues and interests. In return, Kerry used the occasion to bash the former administration. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said.

A year later, Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sat down once again with Assad. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” he said in April 2010. “Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest … in having a very frank exchange on any differences [and] agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” And once again, he called on Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

And now, Kerry’s boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, is ready to go to war with the very Middle Eastern president whom Kerry and his fellow Dems lauded during the Bush Administration.

I guess Obama and Kerry like their new, more radical, Muslim Brotherhood Buddies even more.

Why is the United States of America going to war on the side of radical Muslims, who want to kill all of us “Infidels”?

Is it naiveté, ignorance, or something more malevolent?

Or, is this foreign policy action meant to serve as a distraction from domestic presidential malfeasance?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Assad Vows to Attack Israel. He Doesn’t Know Who He’s Messing With.

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

americanisraelilapelpinSyrian President Bashar Assad announced in an interview yesterday,  that he is “confident in victory” in his country’s civil war, and he warned that his country would retaliate for any future Israeli airstrike on his territory.

Assad also told the Lebanese TV station Al-Manar that Russia has fulfilled some of its weapons contracts recently, but he was vague on whether this included advanced S-300 air defense systems.

The comments were in line with a forceful and confident message the regime has been sending in recent days, even as the international community attempts to launch a peace conference in Geneva, possibly next month. The strong tone coincided with recent military victories in battles with armed rebels trying to topple him.

The interview was broadcast as Syria’s main political opposition group appeared to fall into growing disarray.

The international community had hoped the two sides would start talks on a political transition. However, the opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, said earlier Thursday that it would not attend a conference, linking the decision to a regime offensive on the western Syrian town of Qusair and claiming that hundreds of wounded people were trapped there.

Assad, who appeared animated and gestured frequently in the TV interview, said he has been confident from the start of the conflict more than two years ago that he would be able to defeat his opponents.

“Regarding my confidence about victory, had we not had this confidence, we wouldn’t have been able to fight in this battle for two years, facing an international attack,” he said. Assad portrayed the battle to unseat him as a “world war against Syria and the resistance” — a reference to the Lebanese Hezbollah, a close ally.

“We are confident and sure about victory, and I confirm that Syria will stay as it was,” he said, “but even more than before, in supporting resistance fighters in all the Arab world.”

Assad has said he would stay in power at least until elections scheduled in 2014, but he went further in the interview, saying he “will not hesitate to run again” if the Syrian people want him to do so.

Assad, evidently has never read the accounts of the Six- Day War.

The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way – that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Due to the superior size of the Invasion Force, the world’s  news media reported the imminent defeat of Israel as a fait accompli.

The Invaders were attacking God’s Chosen People from all sides.

Egyptian forces invaded Palestine from the South-west, captured Gaza and were thrusting along the coast to link up with –

Arab legion troops driving from the west towards Tel Aviv, the capital of the new State of Israel.

Another Egyptian column thrust 30 miles across the southern desert and entered Beersheba.

Lebanese and Syrian forces were about to attack from the north.

Iraqi and Trans-Jordan forces were moving in from the North-east.

An Arab legion column striking west from Jericho were only ten miles from Tel Aviv.

Israel’s chances of defeating the Invaders appeared hopeless. As an insurance policy, some of the invading nations had actually forbidden any armaments or weapons to be sold to Israel.

Additionally, the crack Arab Legion forces were trained and led by British Army officers.

Inexplicably, within days, all the invading forces were retreating as fast as their camels could carry them!

The Egyptians were forced back to the Nile. Jordan’s legions had to give up all their area on the west side of the Jordan River. Israel occupied Lebanon and the Golan Heights.

Secular History tells us that it was a combination of Israel taking out the planes of the Egyptian Air Force, while they were still on the ground, and the Commander of their Tank Brigade surrendering, because the reflection off of the desert floor multiplied the size of the Israeli Force, making it seem like the Invaders were surrounded by superior numbers.

However, at the time of Israel’s victory, strange rumors started making the rounds.

Invaders from the south reported that they were confronted by legions of unknown troops clothed in white!

And, the thing was…the Israeli troops reported similar stories!

The outcome of Six Day War of 1967 was very important, because, for the first time for 2,520 years, Israel captured and governed Jerusalem.

For all those years before, Jerusalem was under the thumb of  non-Jewish powers, but their control was prophesied only to continue ‘until the times allotted to the Gentiles are completed,’ Jesus said (Luke 21:24).

Naturally, Christians everywhere got very excited at the significance of this event.

The attack on Israel come out of nowhere. So…how was it that Israel gained such a rapid victory?

God’s Cavalry was there for God’s Chosen People in the Six Day War in 1967.

Arab generals said, ‘they did not know that Israel had large cavalry units.’

Why was Israel favored by God with such an intervention? Was it because they deserved it? The answer is ‘No’.

God kept his promise, found in Leviticus 26: 42-44…

42 I will remember my promise to Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. I will also remember the land. 43 The land, abandoned by them, will enjoy its time to honor the Lord while it lies deserted without them. They must accept their guilt because they rejected my rules and looked at my laws with disgust. 44 Even when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or look at them with disgust. I will not reject or cancel my promise to them, because I am the Lord their God.

Assad needs to remember that. President Barack Hussein Obama does, too.

Until He Comes,

KJ