MADDOG10's Blog

When it comes to President Obama’s prowess as commander in chief, “leading  from behind,” at this point, would be a step up.

Some believe that the United States should engage in military action in  foreign countries when America’s national interests or those of our allies are  at stake. Some believe we should rarely do so, perhaps only when we are under  attack. Some think we should actively export democracy to other nations, whether  or not our national security interests are currently on the line. And some, like  President Obama, are literally all over the map, a quagmire of incoherency.

In withdrawing their support for the war, wholly for political reasons,  Democrats made the preposterous claim that Bush, a man whose intellect they  accorded the respect of a medieval serf, had deceived them into supporting the  Iraq War resolution by false or hyped claims about weapons of mass  destruction.

It didn’t matter to them that investigations showed that Bush clearly hadn’t  manufactured, doctored or misrepresented the intelligence about WMD in Iraq or  that most of the world’s important intelligence agencies came to the same  conclusions as ours had. Nor did it matter that they had reviewed virtually the  same intelligence reports Bush had when they decided to support the war  resolution and that we mustered the support of much of the international  community.

When it was in their perceived political interests to support the war effort  and apparently too much time hadn’t passed since Sept. 11 to give them the  required cover, they supported it. But when they needed to undermine Bush’s  clout as a war president, they shamelessly changed their tune.

They started clamoring about the indispensability of an international  consensus before going to war. They were impervious to claims that Saddam  Hussein had brutalized his own people, including with the use of chemical  weapons. They went out of their way to deny any link between Saddam and the war  on terror and our enemies in that war. They were unmoved by Saddam’s violation  of countless United Nations resolutions.

Democrats trampled one another on the way to the podium to assert that  President Bush was a militaristic ogre who lied to get us into war. They  manufactured and broadcast wildly exaggerated and spuriously deceitful claims  about the deaths and damage America had inflicted in Iraq.

When he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama strongly emphasized  these same criticisms of Bush and the Republicans. Under their leadership, the  world had lost its respect for us. Obama promised to change all this and make  America beloved in the world.

Based on their statements, we must conclude that Obama and his Democrats  abhor doublespeak from America’s commanders in chief and military interventions  that are not supported by the international community and are based on dubious  intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

Yet after Obama’s disgraceful double talk concerning a “red line,” the  Democrats almost unanimously support Obama’s apparent decision to strike Syria  with or without congressional approval – despite there being a conspicuous  absence of any understandable foreign policy objective, no discernible national  interest at stake, unequivocal disapproval from the American people, little  support from the international community, questionable intelligence about the  chemical weapons and a substantial risk that the intervention could ignite major  disruption in the region, empower Islamic radicals hostile to the United States,  which seems to be the common denominator driving all his interventions, and  otherwise jeopardize America’s interests and those of our ally Israel.

The only reason anyone can figure for Obama’s deciding to bomb Syria is that  he believes he must do so to save face and credibility for having drawn a “red  line” against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, a line he now says he  didn’t draw – as if he’ll enhance his credibility by denying he made a claim we  witnessed him making in no uncertain terms. He is now demeaning the very  international community he libelously accused Bush of alienating for not joining  us in this ill-considered action.

The left is all about opposing military interventions – when Republicans are  in power and our proposed intervention is truly in our national security  interests. Leftists are all about enlisting the support of the international  community when it suits their interests – and ignoring it when it doesn’t.  They’re adamant about the necessity of being 100 percent certain about our  intelligence data before acting militarily, except when they’re in charge. And  they’re all about plain-spoken words from the commander in chief, unless they  hold the presidency.

I could have sworn that President Obama and his party decried so-called  unilateralism when they falsely claimed Bush had engaged in it. But now they  enthusiastically embrace it when Obama is preparing to actually do it – acting  unilaterally with respect to both the legislative branch and the international  community.

Whether or not the entire international community loved President George W.  Bush, they respected him – to the extent that world leaders knew he meant what  he said. Obama has neither their love nor their respect.

It’s obvious he hasn’t a clue what he’s doing, but it’s just as obvious he’s  hellbent on doing it. What a pathetic mess.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday, according to Bloomberg  News, that “the U.S. must follow up with more assistance to Assad’s  opponents to shift the balance of power in the conflict … dismissing concerns  that some rebels have militant ties. ‘Those who say we don’t know who the  opposition are, they are either not telling the truth and they know the truth or  they are badly mistaken.’”

This is rich coming from a man who posed  with known jihad kidnappers in Syria. Back in May, McCain went to Syria to  meet with the opposition. While there, he posed for a now-notorious photo with  two Sunni jihadists who were involved in kidnapping 11 Shiite pilgrims in 2012.  This is what happens when clueless politicians inject themselves into situations  in which they clearly do not belong. What was McCain thinking, sneaking into  Syria to meet with jihadists?

McCain said Monday that blocking Obama’s Syria strike would be  “catastrophic.” No, Sen. McCain. Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in  Egypt was “catastrophic,” and so is his backing of the Brotherhood and al-Qaida  in Syria.

McCain explained that to refuse to go along with Obama’s Syrian misadventure  would be “catastrophic” because “it would undermine the credibility of the  United States of America and of the president of the United States.” As if Obama  hasn’t undermined his own credibility beyond repair already.

Then on Tuesday, McCain dismissed the Syrian jihadis’ cries of “Allahu akbar”  by equating them with saying “Thank G-d.” We are witnessing an embarrassing  meltdown right before our very eyes. John McCain equating the cries of “Allahu  akbar” after a jihadi attack with “Thank G-d” requires a complete break with  reality.

I have never heard Christian or Jew (or any non-Muslim) scream “Thank G-d”  after beheading someone or blowing up a school, or slaughtering Muslims on their  way to mosque. “Allahu akbar” is a war cry, and John McCain is an idiot. The  bloodcurdling cry of “Allahu akbar” is meant to “strike terror in the hearts of  the unbelievers” (Quran 3:151).

Why isn’t McCain the poster boy for the Christians and religious minorities  being persecuted, oppressed and slaughtered under Muslim rule? He is a disgrace.  McCain and Graham should be backing the Christians and the Kurds, not jihadists  in Syria. The GOP coming to the rescue of the most seditious and dangerous  president in American history is inexcusable and unforgivable.

Pamela Geller’s  commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books —  featured at the WND Superstore

Even the New  York Times reported that “nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a  secular fighting force to speak of.” And that was on April 28. Nothing has  improved for secularists in Syria since then. But neither the Democrats nor the  RINOs have noticed, despite McCain’s protestations to the contrary. Secretary of  State John Kerry on Sunday compared Bashar al-Assad to “Adolf Hitler and Saddam  Hussein.”

It would be funny if it weren’t so scary. Just last week the Middle East  Media Research Institute (MEMRI) ran a  story featuring jihadists talking about fighting with the “rebels” and the  Free Syrian Army – the very groups Obama is supporting. There has to be a  complete disconnect to reality for Obama and McCain to support these savages.  Despite knowing that the opposition in Syria is driven by jihad and brutal  Islamic supremacism and that its players include the Taliban and al-Qaida, Congress caved to Obama’s demand to arm the jihadists. In July,  House and Senate Intelligence panel members voted  to block Obama from arming the Syrian jihadis, but Obama decided to arm them  anyway.

And no, I do not believe Assad used chemical weapons. I think that is an  elaborate ruse by the jihadists to get the U.S. and Europe to take up arms  against Assad. And it looks as if it is working.

Which Muslim Brotherhood operatives are advising McCain and Graham?  Seriously. CAIR, ISNA, ICNA? How otherwise could they possibly have come to the  conclusion that Obama’s catastrophic Syria plan is good for America?

Muslims from around the world – the U.S., Europe, Africa, Asia – are joining  the jihad in Syria to fight for Islamic conquest and supremacism. Religious  minorities are being annihilated by the jihadists, and yet another nation could  well fall to this brutal and bloody ideology.

And it isn’t just McCain. John Boehner Tuesday announced  his support for Obama’s Syrian plan. And Jeb  Bush is going to present an award to Hillary Clinton. Why? Why would the GOP  and a potential 2016 candidate sanction this? Remember: Clinton’s  State Department was told that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” minutes after  it began – and lied about it.

We don’t need a third party. We need a second party. Ted Cruz is not enough.  The GOP is all but disappearing before our very eyes. They are MIA on Obamacare,  Benghazi, the IRS and now Syria.

Obama is aiding the jihadists; McCain is sneaking into Syria to pose for pics  with them. The former is complicit, the latter is clueless. The outcome is the  same.

White House

President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisers in the White House Situation Room on Saturday to discuss strategy in Syria. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is fourth from right.

A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.

Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.

The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration's strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."

Obama's National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.

Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.

But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week.  And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.

Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote.  “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said.  “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

While Obama's advisers argued Friday night in private that the humiliating defeat for Cameron starkly illustrated the risks of asking for congressional input, the president responded that the vote in Parliament demonstrated exactly why he should seek a vote on this side of the Atlantic, senior officials told NBC News.

And, the president insisted, seeking legislative backing was the approach most consistent with his philosophy.  While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced.

Speaking to the nation early Saturday afternoon, Obama said he was “mindful that I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” 

Where did that come from? Since when has he cared of, by and for the people?  

The president also noted, “while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

White House aides said they are fairly confident that Congress will grant them the authority to launch a strike, although they maintain that Obama would be acting within his constitutional authority even if Congress rejects the authorization and Obama orders military intervention.

Congress is not scheduled to return to Washington for debate until Sept. 9. The administration decided not to call them back early due to the Jewish holidays this week, a delay that the Pentagon also signed off on, saying that the wait won’t diminish U.S. military capabilities in the region. There’s an upside to that cooling-off period too, aides said. The delay gives Obama time to make his case to Congress and to keep pushing for international support.

While the United States does not believe it needs military help in a strike, Obama will push allies for political backing when he attends the G20 summit in Russia next week.

Reaction from Congress was mostly positive in the hours after Obama detailed his position. A statement from House Speaker John Boehner other GOP leaders stated: “We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised” and noted Congress would begin debate when they return to Washington.  And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "President Obama is right that the debate and authorization by Congress for action will make our country and the response in Syria stronger.”

That's just the opposite of what she had sais last week, maybe it will be different next week.

But a key group of Syrian rebels who have been fighting the Assad regime reacted in surprise and anger to the decision.

"The death will continue in Syria because of the (failure of the) leadership of the United States to act decisively at this point," said Louay Safi, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council. "Obama had the moral responsibility (to) act and not waiver."

•  
•    
• 12 inShare
•    
• 40

Students in a rural Kentucky county — and their parents — are the latest to  join a growing national chorus of scorn for the healthy school lunches  touted by first lady Michelle Obama.

“They say it tastes like vomit,” said Harlan County Public Schools board  member Myra Mosley at a contentious board meeting last week, reports The Harlan Daily Enterprise.

The growing body of USDA meal regulations implemented by the Department of  Agriculture under the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of  2010″ has long been a signature issue for the first lady.

Denizens of Harlan County don’t much care, though. Their primary concern at  the board meeting was a bevy of complaints that local children are starving at  lunch — and for the remainder of the school day — because the food on offer in  the cafeteria is crappy and there isn’t nearly enough of it.

“Kids can’t learn when  they’re hungry!” parents shouted to the board, according to the Enterprise.

Other gripes involved the new bread, which students don’t want  to eat because it’s brown wheat bread, and the new milk, which is skim or one  percent fat, not two percent or whole. The cafeteria’s chocolate- and  strawberry-flavored milk offerings are now nonfat.

Jack Miniard, the school district’s director of school and community  nutrition, was on hand to explain that the federal government now governs both  food choices and portion sizes in most American school districts including  Harlan County.

Under the National School  Lunch Program, participating schools must provide lunches — including free or  reduced price lunches — with minimum amounts of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables  and whole grains. Also, in what presumably falls outside the hunger-free aspect  of the act, there’s a calorie cap: 850 for high school lunches, 700 for middle  schools and a mere 650 calories for kids in elementary school.

Students can only have one serving of meat or other protein. However, rich  kids can buy a second portion each day on their own dime.

Servings of carbohydrates such as potatoes are limited to just a single  serving of three-fourths of a cup per student.

On the plus side, students can eat as many fruits and vegetables as they  want.

Across the country, students and parents have expressed dissatisfaction with  the federal government’s new food regime. Some wealthier suburban school  districts are simply backing out  of the National School Lunch Program, though doing so can mean giving up a  six-figure annual subsidy for the district. (RELATED:  First lady-backed school lunch regs cost school district  $100,000)

By: Thomas Sowell 8/28/2013 10:27 AM

RESIZE:  AAA

Many years ago, I was a member of a committee that was recommending to whom grant money should be awarded. Since I knew one of the applicants, I asked if this meant that I should recuse myself from voting on his application.

“No,” the chairman said. “I know him too — and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time.”

The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything — provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.

He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx’s “Capital,” and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.

What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read “Capital,” as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.

Incidentally, he did not get the grant he applied for.

This episode came back to me recently, as I read an incisive column by Charles Krauthammer, citing some of the many gaffes in public statements by the President of the United States.

One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.

Argentina has recently been demanding that Britain return the Falkland Islands, which have been occupied by Britons for nearly two centuries. In 1982, Argentina seized these islands by force, only to have British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher take the islands back by force.

With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina’s government to distract the Argentine public’s attention from the country’s economic and other woes.

Because the Argentines call these islands “the Malvinas,” rather than “the Falklands,” Barack Obama decided to use the Argentine term. But he referred to them as “the Maldives.”

It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.

Nor is this the only gross misstatement that President Obama has gotten away with, thanks to the mainstream media, which sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Obama.

The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama’s reference to a military corps as a military “corpse.” He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. His mispronunciation of a common military term was especially revealing to someone who was once in the Marine Corps, not Marine “corpse.”

Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.

A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

Back during Barack Obama’s first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were “shovel-ready” projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress.

He seemed very convincing — if you didn’t know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.

Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly “shovel-ready” projects.

One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.

Treasury Ran $98 Billion Deficit in July--But Debt Stayed Exactly $16,699,396,000,000