Monthly Archives: March 2011

521.) President Obama authorized military action without the consent of congress to support the Libyan rebels in their fight against Qadaffi. What I find interesting about these actions is that no one asked who these fighters were. Well the truth, as it always does, has found its way to the surface. One of the rebel commanders Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi reported to an Italian news paper that Jihadists who fought against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan are now being supported by the United States government in Libya. He himself fought against coalition forces in the early days of Iraq. This man actually recruited at least 25 individuals to fight against the coalition in Iraq. Some of these individuals are now on the front lines of the Libyan conflict. So we are now supporting the same people, not the same groups, but the same individuals who actually tried to kill United States soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is even more interesting are some of the comments made by al-Hasidi. The Daily Telegraph reports that al-Hasidi said that the Libyan rebels “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” what could have prompted this comment? I think it probably has something to do with the ties these rebels have with Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that is responsible for two attacks on the world trade center, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombings of several U.S. embassies.  Al Qaeda has openly voiced its support for the Libyan rebels because this rebellion could lead to the imposition of “the stage of Islam” in the country.  The proof that members of Al-Qaeda are now fighting on the front lines in Libya, and are now enjoying the support of the United States, comes in the form of al-Hasidi’s own words, “members of Al-Qaeda are good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. So President Obama has decided to support a rebellion that he claims is fighting for democracy. A rebellion being fought by people who stood against democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Just another example of the President’s incompetency.

522.) President Obama gave a speech on Monday March 28, 2011 the purpose of which was to explain why he took actions in Libya that directly contradicted his own words on the campaign trail.  I noticed several things in his speech that must be addressed. 
         a.) One of President Obama’s key talking points dealt with the United States role in the conflict. Public opinion is set against opening a third war in another Arab country, especially sense President Obama told us many times during the campaign that our military is stretched too thin. To address these concerns President Obama said, “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role” President Obama is trying to play a very clever political trick. A slid of hand if you will. Saying that the United States is handing over control to NATO basically means the United States is handing over control to itself.  Yes we will lose control of our armed forces in the region because all the member nations must agree upon actions to be taken. But the financial responsibility for the war will still be ours.  The United States funds 22% of NATO’s budget, that is more than the next two largest contributors, France and Great Brittan, combined.  The same unique capabilities that made the United States the logical spear head will still be needed. Our various attack aircrafts, long range refueling tankers, and surveillance equipment will be needed, and keep us involved. Only now President Obama has given control of the situation over to a group of various nations, and he still has yet to bother getting congressional approval. 
         B.) To actually justify his actions President Obama turned to the conscience of the American People. He started outlining the atrocities that Gaddafi had committed. “Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.” he then said, “Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” he then said, “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” Once the atrocities of Qadaffi had been thoroughly explained President Obama added “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”   Defense Secretary Robert Gates does not think that that Libya was as crucial as the President is trying to make it out to be. Mr. Gates said that Libya was not a vital interest to the country.  But even so the horrors that Qadaffi had inflicted on his people must be al the justification that is needed for the United States and NATO to step in.  Let us crack open the history books I have a feeling a contradiction is coming up.  Starting in 1979 Saddam Hussein unleashed a wave of terror against the people of Iraq, a rule brought to an end in 2003. During his rule Sadam Hussien is responsible anywhere from 800,000 to 1,000,000 deaths, not counting the Iran Iraq war.  Estimates of the number of people executed under his brutal rule range from 300,000 up to 600,000. He massacred over 200,000 Kurds. He killed anywhere from 60,000 to 200,000 people to put down the 1991 rebellion.  Saddam did not hesitate to turn poison gases on his own people, it didn’t matter if they were civilians or not.  With all of these atrocities in place, the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the harboring of Al-Qaeda operatives in place, clearly President Obama supports the invasion of Iraq. The truth though is that he didn’t and doesn’t. In 2008 then Senator Obama said in a speech “Five years ago, my friends warned me not to speak up against the war. Going to war was popular. So was President Bush. You’ll be putting your political career on the line, they said. But I just didn’t see how Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. I was convinced that a war would distract us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and fan the flames of extremism and terrorism” He could not see how Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, so clearly we should not have gone to war. He called the war in Iraq a war based on politics not reason. How is that any different than what he is doing in Libya? Atrocities are no reason to go to war, he has made that clear with his criticism of the Iraq War, so with any imminent threat posed by Qadaffi there is any justification for his actions. 
       c.)  President Obama said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Again, I have to ask, why Libya? Why not Iraq? Why not Darfur? If you are so against seeing mass graves then why are we only acting in Libya? The President says that Libya is unique. We had a chance to work with a collalition of other nations to bring down Qadaffi. Why are they there? What is driving their interest in helping the Rebels? Many of these same nations turned a blind eye to the horrors in Iraq, much as President Obama did, why is Libya so important?  Hundreds of people are being slaughtered on the African continent every day, yet no action is taken to prevent this bloodshed. Why are our allies so eager to jump at the opportunity to help people who call for the end of the western way of life? At the risk of sounding like a leftist loon I have to ask could it have anything to do with the large amounts of money European nations have invested in Libyan oil? 
        d.) Of course President Obama could not resist this chance to bash former President Bush.  “The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change their took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”  In March of 2003 the United Nation Security council announced that Diplomacy had failed and it would proceed with the coalition of the willing to rid Iraq of Sadam Hussien. It is a common tactic of progressives to try to rewrite history to make it work better for their political goals.  President Obama has been consistent against the war in Iraq, but he refuses to admit that what he is doing is almost exactly the same. The only difference here is that President Bush had the authorization of congress, President Obama does not.   What if FDR had taken the same stance with Germany that President Obama is taking with Libya?  We are only going to provide air support so that the British and French could retake their country. Do you think that World War II would have ended the way it did? Coalitions splinter when they lose track of their goals.  When the propaganda media starts trying to use military conflicts for political gains and breaks the will of the people to support the cause. President Obama talks about how long it took to change the regime in Iraq, eight long years. What does he think is going to happen in Libya once the Al-Qaeda backed fighters topple Qadaffi? Does he think that just over night a new government would appear?  It took the United States of America from 1776-1786 to successfully overthrow the rule of Great Brittan and set up a successful government. Ten years to go from colonies of a super power to an independent nation. It took even longer than that for the United States to be able to stand and truly call itself a success. It takes time to build a nation. To simply remove Qadaffi from power requires nothing more than blunt force. We could do much like the allies did in WWI. Go in, defeat the enemy, destroy their country, slap them with a huge debt, then roll on out. The problem with that is when you do that, it creates an opportunity for people like Adolf Hitler to come to power. Once started there is no going back.  President Bush understood this, but apparently President Obama and the rest of the progressive left do not. Cut and run that is the progressive motto. President Obama also took this time to point out how irresponsible President Bush had been with money. The Iraq war cost almost a trillion dollars, over 8 whole years. President Obama spent that much in one year, in the first couple of months of his Presidency. While it is true we cannot afford another war, this reference is nothing more than an attempt to further smear President Bush. While the subject of Iraq is open, I would like to point out that the progressives constantly compared Iraq to Vietnam. If this Libya situation is allowed to continue, I think we will find a better comparison.  No reason to go to war, supporting people who shouldn’t be supported, bailing out the French, sounds eerily familiar.  President Obama is completely incapable of standing on his own two feet. He has to constantly shove George W. Bush into the dirt and mud. If he had the balls to stand on his principles, the same princibles that he used to attack Bush for the war in Iraq than this issue would never have come up.  


520.) Over the weekend President Obama approved missel strikes in Libya.  This raised  a few questions in my mind.
          a.) President Obama and the rest of the left have constantly bashed President Bush for not paying for two wars. How does President Obama plan to pay for these missle strikes? Is he going to raise our taxes, to pay for it? Is he going to just print more money? Maybe he should issue an appology to former President Bush.
          b.) In 2002 then Senator Obama said “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.” 
          c.) In 2002 then Senator Obama said, “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.” Saddam posed no threat to the United States, and this was cited as a reason not to go to war in Iraq. Dispite the acknowledge atrocities of Saddam’s regiem, we did not need to go to war in Iraq. So why then are we launching military strikes in Libya? Does Qadaffi pose a threat to us? Right now could Qadaffi strike and cripple America? If the answer is no then we should not be using military force. 
         d.) Along the same line as C, while a senator in the United States Senate, President Obama was asked under what circumstances if any would the President have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use of force authorization from congress. Then Senator Obama answered “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” I ask you, does Libya actually pose an actual imminent threat to the United States? If Sadam Hussin didn’t can we honestly say that Qaddafi does? 
I have been waiting for President Obama to take action on the Libya situation, however I am shocked just absolutly shocked at how he took action.  He went against his own words that he spoke while campaigning against George W. Bush… sorry John McCain.  He is acting on the UN resolution, but the UN does not suprass our consitution. He said that to bomb Iran the President would have to get congressional approval so what is different between Iran and Libya. Could it possibly be because Barack Obama is now President not George Bush?

518.) Civil war in Lybia, sky rocketing oil prices, a tsunami in Japan, and President Obama chooses to go play a round of golf for the second weekend in a row.

519.) With oil prices sky rocketing, and our wallets shrinking concerns over domestic energy production have come to the for front of Americans a crossed the country. Oil like it or not is needed to power our economy, high gas prices will halt any signs of economic recovery. President Obama’s energy policies have fallen under attack. President Obama addressed concerns about his energy policies and said, “Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political bite, but it doesn’t match up with reality.” He is of course siting that oil production last year reached its highest point sense 2003.  Seemingly President Obama is right he clearly must have done nothing to affect the production of oil. However,  any notion that his administration had any act in aiding the oil production last year, and that he is not negativly affecting oil production in the future might make for a good politcal add, but it doesn’t pass the test of truth.  I would like to take a trip down memory lane, back into the years of the Bush Administration. During those eight years a classic debate raged in the hallowed halls of the captiol building, the debate of course was about drilling for oil in ANWAR. Gas prices were on the rise and concern was sky rocketing oil prices had once again brought the controversial issue to the front lines of American politics. The argument used by the opposing party, in this case progressives, was not only would drilling in ANWAR destroy a prestine natural landscape but it would have no affect on oil prices because it would take ten years for the oil to begin pumping.  So according to the left it take ten years before oil production would affect the market. So what that means is that actions taken ten years ago would just now be affecting the amount of oil produced in the country. Basically the reason oil production was up, was because of actions taken by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, hey in fact had nothing to do with President Obama’s policies, so he cannot claim that his policies were somehow responsible.  To say that he has not hurt oil production in this country is a streight face lie. Lets apply a little common sense to the situation. President Obama claims that his polices have not shut down oil production, when in fact they have done just that. He ordered a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, when the court struck it down, he put it back into place. That is shuting down drilling.  In 2007 the EPA projected that oil production would be at 850 million barrels in 2010 on public land. Today our total oil production is only at 714 million barrels on public land. That works out to be a 16% decrease in the project oil production.  That means that something changed, something happened that made production slow down and fall short of what it should have been. What caused the discrepency? Surely it was nothing President Bush did, all I heard from 2000-2008 was that President Bush was the devil and existed only to serve big oil. So clearly he would not have done anything to bring down oil production.  President Obama would have you believe that his cancling new leases for exploration, imposing a drilling moratorium, had nothing to do with hindering oil production. Once the final oil projects approved under President Bush have been equated fully into the system, the numbers will stop going up and either stagnate or drop. I am not claiming that if he had not of done these things that oil would be 30 cents a gallon, or that we would be swiming in oil. What I am saying is that President Obama is lying, he is trying to cover his tracks and appear that he is willing to meet people in the middle on oil production. When the truth is we all know he is not. He has said before he is fine with $4 a gallon gas. Is the truth to much to ask for? I guess it probably is sense that would probably cost President Obama the election and that would not be fair.

514.) President Obama has once again spoken up about the protests in Wisconsin, one of his comments was “I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified, or their rights infringed upon.” So its not okay to vilifiy public workers, so is it okay to vilifiy private workers? There may be a lot of people taking cheep shots at the Union Workers striking right now, but it is the Union itself that is vilifying public workers.  Look at the protests, what is going on over there.  Protesters refusing to listen to police when asked to leave the state house, signs saying F Scot Walker, they are actually giving classes on how to be more comforatble in handcuffs when they get arrested.  While these are non-violent protests, they are not painting themselves as innocent school children. What I find the most interesting is when President Obama says that no one wins when these public workers rights are infringed upon.  I imagen that he is refering to the issue of collective bargining. In this case a practice where the labor unions bargin with state officals with someone elses money. A great quote comes to mind, “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations” Quote that right wing radical FDR.  Even FDR a radical progressive, much like President Obama, understood that the government could not afford to have collective bargining with labor unions. Part of this might be because FDR was not as dependent upon union dollars to get reelected.   It is interesting to note that President Obama says that collective bargining is a right, yet federal employees are not allowed to collectivly bargin.

515.) President Obama said in his inaurgeration that now the earth was going to start to heal. He has dedicated himself to fighting the dangers of global warming. He anounced plans for a cap in trade system that would cause our energy rates to necessarily sky rocket. He championed the idea of bankrupting the coal industry. He put a moretorum on drilling in the gulf (Against, a court order) which has help tot lead to the sky rocketing gas prices. We as a nation have all had to make sacrifices to fight the dangers of the discredited theory of man made global warming. Our President is leading the way on how to live responsibly in these new green times, and he should truely be commended for it. Rather than taking time and wasting energy on finding a new personal trainer who lives in Washington D.C., President Obama has realized that it would be far more enviromentally friendly to fly his personal trainer from Chicago to Washington DC at least once a week.  Wait… that doesn’t make sense at all.  While I commend the first family for leading the way on thining down the American belt line, it brings my blood to a boil when I think about this story. President Obama has been on the attack against anyone who doesn’t believe in his green movement, while we are facing an increase hit to the wallet caused by his policies, this man flies someone to D.C. to work out?  Are you telling me that there are no personal trainers in Washington? The man preaches do as I say not as I do. He only wants the green economy so long as it doesn’t effect him at all. 

516.) A low level Obama Administration offical, Secreatary of State Hillary Clinton, made a very interesting statment recently. “In fact viewership of Al-Jazzeera is going up in the United States because it is real news. You may not agree with it but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news that is not providing information to us. Let alone forigeners.” So, the Obama administration started by going after Fox News, now they are going after all news. Apparently it is the responsibility of the government, the executive branch in particular, to explain to us how a forgien system is better than our own. So Breit Bear having a pannel that includes people from both sides of an issue such as Charles Krauthamer and Juan Williams is not informative. Bill O’Reilly having people like Allen Colms and Dick Morse on to discuss issues is not informative. But Al-Jazziera having full length videos of Osma Bin Laden calling for death to all Americans is?  Seccretary Clinton in this same speech blamed cable out lets for America’s bad image abroad, I think Al-Jazziera playing images of Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling America the great satan might have more to do with the image than cable tv. I just cannot beleive that Hillary Clinton said that Al-Jazziera is real news, when anyone who sees it can instantly tell the anti-american message. The anti-American bias became so deep that award winning reporter David Marash gave up his job there. He is definiatly not a memeber fo the 6% of journalist that are conservative either.  Yet more sickening statments from the Obama Administration I wish I could say that I was suprised.

517.) President Obama slow to react, has finally started making statments dealing with the situation in Lybia. President Obama had this to say to Gaddafi loyalist, “I want to send a clear message to those who are around Colonel Gaddafi. Tt is their choice to make, how they opperate moving forward, and they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place there.” So President Obama is sending aclear message that people are going to be held accountable.  What in his history as President gives him any creditablity in this area? He did a great job dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambition… no actually he did a bad job with that because if I remember correctly the Iranians laughed in our face. I bet those Lybians are shaking in their boots. He might levy sanctions against them.