Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

17 September 2013

President Obama's Tone Deafness





SoRo:

But, Bush flying over Louisiana and Mississippi to survey Katrina damage – at the behest of local officials – meant that he hated black people or something.

I guess Barack Obama hates Federal employees and civilians, who work for contractors during business with his precious government.



http://tinyurl.com/pdfe795


Pic of the Day: Shut Up! I'm Driving!








http://tinyurl.com/nq3ztqr




16 September 2013

Obama Waives Ban On Arming Terrorists



http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338/03/338-0327200200-syria-rebels.jpg


By Joel Gehrke 

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. 

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah. 

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction." 

Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): "The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act. 

"For purposes of this subsection, such acts shall include all activities that the Secretary determines willfully aid or abet the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aid or abet an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded special nuclear material," the law continues.

The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States." 

Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests. 

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., endorsed providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. 

"Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support," Corker said. "And there's going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition."

SoRo:


Here’s the treasonous thing:

If these terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan, they would be our enemies. All terrorists have to do is go to Syria and – Voila! – they can get American weapons c/o the POTUS.

So that we are clear, these are the guys that we'll be arming...
 



http://tinyurl.com/ksobvv7





Putin & The 98-Pound Weakling






By Margaret Wente, Canada's The Globe & Mail

The moral imperative is clear, he argued. We cannot let dictators get away with this. On the other hand, the United States can’t be expected to solve all the world’s problems, either. Therefore, the way ahead is to outsource U.S. foreign policy on Syria to … Vladimir Putin!

So much for the credibility of the world’s only superpower. Mr. Obama’s staff have been tweeting that this delaying tactic is an incredible display of smart diplomacy. But to most of us, it just makes him look gullible. The President has allowed himself to be hog-tied and hornswoggled by Lilliputians. He was determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, when a blundering giant threw its weight around and only wound up showing the world how incompetent it is. But if there’s one thing worse than being a blundering giant, it’s being a 98-pound weakling.

On Thursday, Mr. Putin kicked more sand in his face. On the op-ed page of The New York Times no less, he lectured Mr. Obama on diplomacy and peace. “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future,” he said with a straight face. “We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.”

This from the guy who has been arming Bashar al-Assad to the teeth and blocking the United Nations from doing anything about it. Mr. al-Assad has been using Russian weapons to slaughter his own people.

I guess it’s always possible that the Syrian dictator (memorably likened to a “human toothbrush” by Christopher Hitchens) will immediately surrender his stockpiles of chemical weapons (which he has claimed he doesn’t have), welcome UN weapons inspectors with open arms and give armed protection to the squads of experts who will be necessary to decommission and destroy his various caches of nerve gas, who will somehow do their jobs in the midst of a the bloody civil war that has already destroyed half the country. Or maybe the UN can send in peacekeepers to put it under international control. Or maybe the Easter Bunny will intervene.

More likely is that Mr. al-Assad will use the newly opened diplomatic track to obfuscate, delay, prevaricate and continue killing people, while tying up the process in endless procedural knots. He has now promised to sign the UN Chemical Weapons Treaty – just not quite yet, and only if the U.S. stops arming the rebels, and only if Israel ratifies it first.

Like most everybody else, I’m confused as hell over Syria. The trouble is, Mr. Obama is confused, too. This is not reassuring. He appears to be making it up as he goes along. The only thing that’s clear is that he hates – really hates – being commander-in-chief. He was the guy who was going to get the United States out of all of George W. Bush’s messes. And now this!

Mr. Bush’s problem was that once he made decisions, he never second-guessed himself. Mr. Obama’s problem is that he overthinks. He changes his mind and paints himself into a corner. At first, he said Mr. al-Assad had to go. Then he said regime change wasn’t in the cards. He said there was a red line Mr. al-Assad mustn’t cross. Then, when Mr. al-Assad crossed it, he said it wasn’t his red line, it was the world’s – even as it became excruciatingly clear that the world wasn’t about to do a thing about it.

He said Syria poses no threat to America, but also that attacking it would be in the national interest. On his own, he decided to seek Congressional approval – then trapped himself when it turned out Americans had no taste for another foreign (mis)adventure of the kind he had promised to extricate them from.

No wonder seasoned foreign-policy types are tearing their hair out in clumps. “Words like ad hoc and improvised and unsteady come to mind,” Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Times.

I’ve always been deeply skeptical of the case for intervening, for the simple reason that it might wind up doing more harm than good. The two strongest reasons, it seems to me, were to show that there are consequences for violating international norms, and to demonstrate that the United States means what it says.

But Mr. Obama doesn’t really mean what he says. So why should anybody take him seriously? In fact, there are no consequences, and everything he and his comically inept sidekick John Kerry have said about human rights and justice and the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons is just a bunch of hot air. His message to rogue states like Iran is: You can get away with anything. His message to greater powers such as China is that he’s incapable of strategic thinking. And his message to allies such as Israel is that they can’t rely on him to have their back.

Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. He looks like he’s way over his head. Now he’s let himself get rolled by the biggest bully on the block. In the immortal words of Mr. Kerry, he looks “unbelievably small.” And that’s not good.




http://tinyurl.com/kuh8mda





'Moderate' Syrian Rebel Commander: Christians Will Live As 'Dhimmis' In Future Islamic State of Syria




The Opposition and the Failure to Reassure the Christians



And, yet, Insane McVain and cohorts continue to yap about the 'moderate' Syrian rebels, who are anything but (as I have detailed ad nauseum here: Let's Catch Up With Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That Obama, Kerry & McCain Are Still Trumpeting!)...


From Al Monitor via WeaselZippers:


By Tareq al Abed (translated from As-Safir (Lebanon) 

Syrian Christians as a whole have not thrown their support behind either side in the Syrian war. Nevertheless, Christians in Syria have been subjected to a lot of pressure by both the regime and the opposition, which failed to give them (or any religious or ethnic Syrian component) any assurances or support.

Some armed groups have accused the church of supporting the regime. And many of the opposition’s statements and video clips do not reassure minorities that they will be participants in the new Syria.


The political opposition: failure without borders 


In the revolution’s first months, Christians did join the protests in various towns and villages. One day of protests was even called “Good Friday.” In several areas, the churches opened their doors to displaced persons and those affected by the war, as in Daraa, Aleppo and Hama. But when the revolution was militarized and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed, Christians started fearing for their future role in light of the growing Islamist trend in the various armed opposition battalions.

Matters became worse after some oppositionists in the field accused the regime of supporting the Christians, citing celebrations in al-Kassa’a and Bab Touma in Damascus. Christians’ fears were reinforced after bombings, shelling and clashes broke out at churches in Damascus and other sites such as Irbeen in the Damascus countryside, Homs and Deir ez-Zor.

In addition to all that, the political opposition has failed miserably to reassure the Christians and has neglected to address many worrisome events. Father Fadi Haddad was killed in Katana, in the Damascus countryside. Bishops Boulos al-Yazigi and Youhanna Ibrahim were kidnapped in Aleppo. Father Paolo Dall’Oglio disappeared in Raqqa. Clashes recently reached Maaloula in the Qalamun. And there was news about attacks on churches and monasteries in Ras al-Ain.

When the two bishops were kidnapped, the Syrian National Coalition and Syrian National Council (SNC) accused extremist armed groups of kidnapping and possibly killing them. Then both groups backpedaled and said that the regime was behind the crime, to scare the Christians into supporting it. The opposition did not promote a discourse emphasizing loyalty to the homeland over religion. It took no concrete steps to prevent a repeat of what happened to the churches in Iraq and the subsequent waves of Christian migration.

The National Coalition and the opposition abroad thought that placing a Christian figure in a leading position would reassure the minorities, so George Sabra was elected to head the SNC. They also promoted Michel Kilo, who made ​​great efforts to showcase the role of Christian activists in the revolution. Kilo asserted that the Christian street disagrees with the church’s position. Activist Ghassan Saltana made the same claim.

But on the ground, nothing changed. The opposition simply kept repeating that the only guarantee for the minorities is to participate in the revolution. Some activists have tended not to blame the National Coalition, and the political opposition in general, because its popularity on the ground is almost nonexistent and thus its positions mean nothing. Neither the bishops’ kidnappers nor the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) responded to the opposition’s calls, assuming they even recognize it.

Things were made worse by the performance of the opposition media. It presented the popular movement as a Sunni “revolution” against the Alawites, or that the Sunnis were being killed while other sects enjoyed calm, thus placing religious sectarianism above national belonging. Regarding the political opposition inside Syria, such as the National Coordination Committee, its role is limited because it has stayed away from any street action and because of the weakness of its media. The net result is a major failure by the opposition in dealing with Syria's societal components. The opposition has limited itself to repeating slogans that do not have any actual effect on the ground.


The armed opposition and the church: All eyes on Maaloula 


For the last two years, the gunmen haven’t stormed any Christian-majority area, even within the liberated areas. So the FSA’s position toward the Christians depended on the first contact on the ground between Christians and opposition fighters, despite that faction leaders have praised the role of “our [Christian] brothers in the context of the revolution.”

The commanders of the Islamist brigades, who have declared more than once that their project was to establish a caliphate, have repeatedly indicated that no one will persecute the Christians or drive them out of their homes because they are “people of the book” and dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state), so there are no problems with them, unlike the rest of the communities such as Shiites, Alawites and Druze.

ISIS has another position. Unconfirmed news from Raqqa indicate that Father Paolo was killed in accordance with a decision from the “emir” on the grounds that “the Christians have betrayed the covenant,” and should therefore be killed. But that news has not been verified, and ISIS has said nothing about Paolo’s disappearance so far.

But with the entry of the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra to Maaloula in the Qalamun mountains near Damascus, there is a lot at stake. While opposition activists in the region have strongly denied (by posting dozens of video clips) any assault on the monasteries and churches in the town, the appeals by the FSA and the gunmen have failed to reassure the people there.

On the other hand, a YouTube video showed an FSA gunman blowing up a church in Aarbin in the Damascus countryside and burning it completely. The clip shows the church destroyed and some of the icons burned.




http://tinyurl.com/lbpcbgo









When Democrats Go To War



http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.441330!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-bam-jpg.jpg


Posted By W James Antle III

What was President Obama thinking? The question comes to mind repeatedly after weeks of inscrutable presidential behavior concerning his proposed war — or not war — on Syria.

Obama managed to become the first American president embarrassed and upstaged by a Russian leader since the end of the Cold War. And not just any Russian leader, but Vladimir Putin. A man who frets about gays while he prances around shirtless, cavorting with farm animals. A man whose bizarre rantings even stand out on the op-ed pages of the New York Times (though still better than the average Thomas Friedman column).

But what was Obama trying to accomplish in the first place? Does he, as Nicholas Kristof basically argues, now have Assad right where he wants him? Was this a well thought out plan, or is the president simply slipping from one banana peel to the next, as it appears to the naked eye?

Partisan Democrats have settled on a convenient explanation: authorizing the president to go to war will give him the leverage he needs, a credible military threat, to reach a diplomatic solution.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is similar to the explanation offered by Democrats who voted for the Iraq war after it became an unmitigated disaster. They would say they voted for the authorization of force not because they wanted to go to war, but because they wanted to give George W. Bush another weapon in his diplomatic arsenal.

This was patent nonsense. George W. Bush had many flaws, but ambiguity about whether he wanted to invade Iraq was not one of them. But Hillary Clinton road-tested this argument even as she prepared to cast her vote for the war.

“I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” she said. A funny thing to say while one is voting to launch a war, but Clinton did not want us to see it that way.

“Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation,” Clinton argued.

“My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world,” she added.

The post-invasion Iraqi refugees thank you for that, Mrs. Clinton.

Not as succinct as John Kerry’s “for it before I was against it” line, but still momentous. Clinton’s vote for war in order to make war less likely kept her from winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Kerry’s responsibility-dodging on Iraq was also something to behold. In an interview with Rolling Stone before the 2004 election, he talked about all the different reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq. “Why do you think we really invaded Iraq?” Rolling Stone asked. “I can’t psychoanalyze them,” Kerry sighed. “They were driven by ideology; they were driven by a fixation on Saddam Hussein.”

They were driven by a congressional authorization of force, for which Kerry voted! Nowhere in that interview does Kerry own up to the fact that he voted for the war. In a previous interview with the same magazine, he was almost as evasive: “I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, ‘I’m against everything’? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f – – k it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”

So Kerry votes for a war, but it’s all George Bush’s fault. And it was mean of Howard Dean to be “against everything,” like the war Kerry authorized and Bush f–ked up.

Kerry’s position on Iraq was hopelessly muddled during his presidential campaign. He basically seemed to be saying he would manage the Iraq war more competently. After watching Kerry try merely to sell Syria, the issue of his superior competence can now safely be put to rest. He has an unbelievably small level of competence.

Which brings us back to what Obama was thinking. His foreign policy is based on the premise he can be as interventionist as he wants provided he does not put American boots on the ground. The unpopularity of American casualties seems to have been his only takeaway from Iraq.

As far as domestic politics is concerned, he is probably right. After the president’s unconstitutional war in Libya, the country remains a hellhole where they kill our diplomats and steal our weapons. But even after Benghazi, Libya did not do to Obama’s presidency what Iraq deservedly did to Bush’s.

But just because preventive war and regime change can be done on the cheap from the air doesn’t mean there aren’t still unintended consequences. Obama thought he would be able to lob a few cruise missiles at Syria, mumble about red lines in the Rose Garden and then call it a day.

Not so.

When Bob Dole groused at the 1976 vice presidential debate about “Democrat wars,” it was seen as a gaffe. But maybe the old man had a point.



Related:





 




Pic of the Day: AppEasy Rider





Created by Hot Air's own b-keyser.  Megapplause!



http://tinyurl.com/m3me9sm





'Toons of the Day: It's An ObamaWorld!


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


Political Cartoons by Eric Allie


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne


Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert





Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley


Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell







But, the War on Americans continues...



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez


As does the War on the Senses...



Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert


But, the Democratic War on Women has lost two of its favourite warriors...


Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino







http://tinyurl.com/mwj3mtp