Advertisement

Posts tagged with President Barack Obama

American Bombing of Syria Would Be Unjust and Immoral

Let me see if I've got this right. President Barack Obama has decided the Syria government has used unacceptable means of killing Syrians so Obama is considering demonstrating the acceptable way of killing Syrians by using conventional weapons to kill Syrians.

The fact that Obama is even considering such an action raises doubts about his sanity.

Killing residents of a country because the country's government used chemical weapons to attack another country might be acceptable. However, the United States cannot justify punishing residents of a country because its government has mistreated them. Such an action would compound the original injury.

If the United States has evidence Syrian government officials have violated international law, the correct response would be to present the evidence to the World Court for prosecution for war crimes whenever prosecution becomes practical.

Killing even one innocent Syrian for a Syrian government official's mistreatment of other Syrians would be murder. If Obama kills any civilians to "punish" Syrian government officials, Congress should impeach and remove Obama from office for the high crime of murder. The United States should then turn Obama over to the World Court for possible prosecution for war crimes.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution assigns the Vice President and member of the president's cabinet the responsibility of monitoring a president's mental and physical health and relieving him if it appears he is not mentally or physically able to properly handle the powers of the presidency. The responsibility is similar to the responsibility of senior officers on a ship to relieve a captain who has become unable to handle the captain's duties.

If Obama is considering killing innocent Syrians to punish its government for mistreating other Syrians, the cabinet should ask mental health professionals to evaluate whether or not Obama should be relieved of his duties until such time as he regains the mental competence to handle the office responsibly.

Reply

Will Obomber Destroy Syria in Order to Save It?

In the Vietnam War a marine officer once commented that he was burning a Vietnamese village in order to save it. President Barack Obama's threat to launch a terrorist bombing campaign against Syria would increase the destruction of the country without any guarantee that the government would let America's Imperial President dictate how it should treat its citizens.

Such bombing campaigns have a history of failure. Germany's massive bombing of England during World War II failure to cause the country to surrender as did the American bombing of North Vietnam in the sixties. The Russians had to intervene in the Serbian conflict after the American bombing campaign failed to change things. The United States had to invade Iraq a decade ago to get Saddam Hussein to get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction after the bombing campaign failed to produce compliance.

Imperial President Barack Obomber has already destroyed one Muslim country in his efforts to convince people that he is Emperor of the world. Libya still hasn't recovered from his destructive efforts. His inept handling of Libya hasn't given his European friends the control of Libyan oil that they wanted when they got him to support their attack on the country.

Bombings often produce what American terrorist Timothy McVeigh called "collateral damage". President Bill Clinton's attacks on Serbia damaged a hospital and the Chinese embassy. Obomber's bombing of Libya murdered some members of Muammar Gaddafi's family with his bombing campaign. How many innocent civilians will die in Syria if Obomber gets to launch a terrorist bombing campaign against the country? .

When did the President of the United States become god of the world? Who appointed the United States to decide how other countries should treat their citizens? Would Obomber attack Russia or China if they mistreated their citizens or does he just try to bully smaller countries that are too small to defend themselves against the imperialist United States?

The United States has no moral authority to dictate how other governments should treat people considering the government's mistreatment of the country's original residents and the way it allowed the mistreatment of the descendants of slaves in the century after the Civil War.

Reply 4 comments from Thomas Bryce Armstrong Hedshrinker Beerbaron03

Was Benghazi Murder?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi is the similarity of the situation to one of the most famous murders in history,

Most people have probably heard of the romance story of Israel's King David and Bathsheba. Fewer are aware of how David got rid of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite.

To summarize the story: David saw Bathsheba bathing and decided to have a brief affair with her and got her pregnant. He tried to cover up his role in the pregnancy by having her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite recalled with the hope Uriah would spend some time with his wife so he would appear responsible for her pregnancy. Uriah's code of ethics prevented him from having sex with his wife while his comrades were still in combat.

David then issued orders for Uriah to be placed in the middle of a battle and have other soldiers withdraw so he would be killed.

It has been alleged by those in Benghazi at the time of Benghazi attack on the consulate that they were ordered not to try to rescue U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others in the consulate. Such orders would normally seem unlikely considering the fact that Viet Cong attack on the American embassy in Saigon in 1968 was part of the reason President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. The capture of the American embassy in Tehran was one of the reasons President Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid.

Any order not to mount a rescue effort to prevent an al Qaeda victory could be construed as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- the Constitutional definition of treason. American forces quickly retook the American embassy in Saigon in 1968. President Carter launched an ill fated rescue effort to rescue personnel at the American embassy in Iran. Obama and Clinton had personnel available to attempt a rescue effort. Why weren't those forces used?

Normally American presidents would be expected to do whatever was necessary to protect the lives of American ambassadors. Why did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fail to protect Ambassador Stevens? Were they too dumb to recognize the possibility al Qaeda would take the consulate? Did one of them or someone else high in the administration want Ambassador Stevens, or someone else at the consulate, to die for some reason?

Ambassador Stevens wasn't married, so the motive couldn't have been the same as the motive for killing Uriah. Perhaps Stevens was connected to a scandal that hasn't been uncovered yet. I'm aware that there are rumors that both Stevens and Obama are homosexual, but don't know if the rumors are true.

I don't have any answers, only questions. Congress needs to consider the possibility that the Benghazi incident was used by someone high in the Obama administration to kill Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the consulate. It would also be possible the intended victim wasn't at the consulate even though someone in Washington thought he, or she, would be.

Reply

Obama’s Inane Debate Comment

President Barack Obama made the most inane debate comment of the early 21st century in the October 22nd debate. http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military's[sic] changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

We may not need as many horses and bayonets as we did in 1916, but we need more ships than the peace time navy of 1916 did. In 1916 the United States didn't think it needed a big navy because it wasn't involved in World War 1 and still expected the British Navy to control the seas. The United States Navy has inherited the commerce protecting and peace keeping role the British Navy played a century ago. However, the U.S. cannot perform that role with only 114 ships of 287 total ships deployed over 139 million square miles of ocean. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146

The United States should have an aircraft carrier based group with rescue helicopters and Marines off the coast of Libya and other hot spots where embassies are close enough to the sea for sea based rescues. The capital of Iran was too far from the sea for a sea based rescue during the Carter administration. Diplomatic facilities in Libya and some other trouble spots can be reached from ships.

It may come as a surprise to Obama, but the main reason we ended up in WWI was because the United States didn't have enough ships to protect its merchant ships from German submarines called U-boats. Nuclear power for submarines may have come long after WWI but "ships that go underwater" were a major German weapon in that war. The first submarine was built in the 17th Century and the first submarine attack was an unsuccessful attempt to attach a bomb to a British ship during the American Revolution. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worlds-first-submarine-attack

It is unlikely that Japan would have attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 if the United States had had more than one fleet in the Pacific. Japan thought that knocking out the only American fleet in the Pacific would allow it to take control of the Pacific before the United States could build a replacement fleet.

This year begins the 200th anniversary of the first major war fought by the United States, the War of 1812. The United States wouldn't have felt a need to enter that war if it had had a big enough navy to discourage the British navy from kidnapping sailors from American merchant ships and even naval ships.

Peace provides the best environment for the international trade the U.S. economy has always depended upon. The United States first foreign "war" was an attack on pirates on the North African coast. The U.S. needs a big enough navy to permanently station ships in shipping lanes plagued by pirates.

The Navy provides the best option for protecting the peace. Moving ships to a trouble spot doesn't require construction of large bases first. Personnel can be stationed near a trouble spot without the complications involved with stationing troops among the local population. We may not need as many horses and bayonets as were needed in 1916, but ships are even more necessary.

Four years ago Democrats criticized Gov. Sarah Palin for her statement "I can see Russia from my house". Compare that to Obama's statements: "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." Obama apparently thinks he's speaking to children, or maybe he just has a simple mind.

Obama's statements that al Qaeda is weak ignores the implications of the attack on the Libyan consulate. Al Qaeda may be weaker in Afghanistan, but it is growing elsewhere. It is not going away any time soon. Obama is underestimating the strength of al Qaeda much like the Johnson administration underestimated the strength of the Viet Cong before the 1968 Tet offensive.

Reply 29 comments from Bugrpiknrtwnger Fretster Mike Ford Beatrice Overplayedhistory Somedude20 Fiddleback Deec Armstrong Roland Gunslinger and 9 others

Is President Obama Mentally Competent - the $5 T Gaffe?

President Barack Obama's obsession with a mythical Mitt Romney $5 trillion tax cut raises serious questions about Obama's mental health.

The federal government only receives about $1.2 trillion in total income taxes per year. There is no way a $5 trillion tax cut would be possible in the short term.

Congress would have to almost eliminate the income tax to produce a $5 trillion cut in 5 years. Cutting $500 billion a year would take 10 years to produce a $5 trillion cut. Cutting $250 billion a year would take 20 years to produce $5 trillion in cuts.

I considered the possibility Obama was deliberately lying, but why would an intelligent rational person use a lie that would be so easily exposed as a lie? Besides, Voice Analysis Technology used its audio technology to check the level of stress in the statements of both candidates and determined that both believed they were telling the truth.

The presidency is a high pressure job that can potentially destroy people. Many historians believe that the stress of heading an administration tainted by corruption killed President Warren G. Harding. Obama's obsession with an obviously non-existent tax cut proposal indicates he has apparently cracked under the pressure.

If Obama isn't living in the real world, he may not be able to respond appropriately in crisis situations.

With the recent Middle East crisis and the state of the world economy, we would expect our president to use the opening of the new session of the United Nations to meet with other world leaders. Instead, Obama decided to appear on "The View" talk show. He apparently is unaware that news stories about him meeting with world leaders would do more to help his presidential campaign than appearance on a talk show, even a talk show like "The View".

His most important recent accomplishment seems to be establishing a brewery in the White House. While he was showing off his brewery, he failed to check to see if American diplomatic facilities in the Middle East were prepared for possible 9/11 anniversary attacks. The result was a disastrous attack on the American consulate in Libya. Obama brewed beer while the Middle East burned.

Obama's separation from the real world may not be recent. Mark Bowden claims in his new book "The Finish" that in the event Osama bin Laden had been taken alive, Obama wanted him to be tried in American civil courts to demonstrate American due process. Shouldn't a Harvard Law School graduate have been aware that if that had been done, the first thing bin Laden's attorneys would have done would have been to request bin Laden's release on the grounds that his "arrest" without a judge authorized search warrant was illegal, particularly considering that the SEALs had entered Pakistan without permission of the Pakistani government? We should be doubly glad that the SEALs killed bin Laden instead of merely capturing him. If he had been captured the courts might have released him.

The British tabloids reported two years ago that Obama's doctor had recently told him he should cut down on his excessive drinking as well as his cigarette smoking. If President Obama is drinking excessively he is almost certainly an alcoholic, particularly considering that his father Barack Obama, Sr., was an alcoholic and his half brother George is an alcoholic. Alcoholism often has a connection to certain genes, especially the "risk taker" gene. If Obama is an alcoholic, he won't be able to simply cut back on alcohol consumption. His only option is to stop drinking completely.

Alcoholics often have trouble relating to the real world, but I'm doubtful that alcohol alone could explain such an obviously mythical claim that Mitt Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut. Alcohol consumption might explain unwillingness to drop the tax cut subject and other aspects of his demeanor in the first debate, but probably not the development of the tax cut idea itself.

Reply 24 comments from Gl0ck0wn3r Tange Verity Thomas Bryce Greg Cooper Fiddleback Roland Gunslinger Autie The_original_bob Constitutional_malfeasance and 6 others

Democrats Need a Bobby Kennedy Now

If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate. President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected in the current economic situation because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy.

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked. Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection. Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet. Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead.

Obama's consistently low approval ratings indicate he has little chance of reelection. Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates. Most voters aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters. Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.

Reply