Posts Tagged ‘delay’

Why Liberals Are Quintessential Hypocrites As Illustrated In Three Recent Stories

August 25, 2014

Okay.  You’d probably better sit down for this because I’ve got a newsflash: liberals are suing to get their way [GASP]:

Federal judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional
By Maura Dolan
A federal judge has ruled California’s death penalty unconstitutional
Long delays in California executions violate Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, judge rules
July 16, 2014

A federal judge in Orange County ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, ruled on a petition by death row inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to die nearly two decades ago.

————

FOR THE RECORD

July 16, 1:16 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney was a federal judge in Los Angeles. He is a federal judge in Orange County.

————

Carney said the state’s death penalty has created long delays and uncertainty for inmates, most of whom will never be executed.

He noted that more than 900 people have been sentenced to death in California since 1978 but only 13 have been executed.

“For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California’s death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution,” Carney wrote.

Carney’s ruling can be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of  Appeals.

Carney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the delays have created a “system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determine whether an individual will actually be executed,” Carney said.

In overturning Jones’ death sentence,  Carney noted that the inmate faced “complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether” he will be executed.

The “random few” who will be executed  “will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary,”  Carney said.

“No rational person,” Carney wrote, “can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society.”

Natasha Minsker, a director of the ACLU of Northern California, said Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time that a federal judge had found  the state’s current system unconstitutional. She said it was also “the first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in 1995 sentenced Jones to death for the 1992 rape and killing of Julia Miller, his girlfriend’s mother. Jones killed Miller 10 months after being paroled for a previous rape.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said only that her office was reviewing the decision.

Okay, so let’s understand what the liberal judge said to this point: the death penalty is “unconstitutional.”  Why?  Because the delays in jumping through all the “due process” hoops took so long that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Okay, so – shocker alert here – liberals don’t like the death penalty so they love to rule that it is “unconstitutional.”  It doesn’t matter that the damn death penalty was being implemented before, during and after the Constitution was written.  It boils down to this: if liberals don’t like something, that thing is “unconstitutional,” because the “Constitution” is a “living, breathing document” that only means whatever the hell a liberal wants it to mean at any given moment.  So the death penalty is “unconstitutional” for the same reason that being opposed to the MURDER of more than fifty-six million innocent babies is “unconstitutional” or being for marriage as it has been defined for all of human history up to now is “unconstitutional.”

But keep in mind that at the center of the liberal judges reasoning is that the lengthy delays in jumping through all the due process hurdles creates “cruel and unusual punishing.”  I mean, like if you could just snuff out these rabid dogs faster, it would be okay.

Okay, this will stun the hell out of you: liberals are suing on a different matter to get their way at the same moment they’re suing here.  Consider their reasoning for this lawsuit:

US sued by immigrant rights groups over expedited deportation process
Coalition says Obama administration policies to deal with influx at border is unfair to women and children who flee to safety
theguardian.com, Friday 22 August 2014 16.48 EDT

A coalition of immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s expedited deportation process, claiming that it is unfair to women and children who flee Central America to seek safety in the US.

The groups claim the Obama administration’s new policies have created a “deportation mill” at a new government family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

“As the attorneys on the ground in Artesia have told us, the government is implementing a new expedited removal system which presents procedural obstacles that make it incredibly difficult for these women to even articulate their claim,” said Trina Realmuto, staff attorney at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

The National Immigration Project, American Immigration Council, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center filed the suit, MSPC v Johnson, in the US district court for the District of Columbia on Friday. They claim the Obama administration’s policies are unfair and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and US constitution.

Advocates say women in these facilities do not receive proper counsel or time to file asylum claims, which are known for taking time to process.

[…]

Okay, so liberals – who rabidly hate the death penalty because deep down they KNOW that they frankly deserve it so damn much themselves – claim that it’s “unconstitutional” because of the lengthy time to pursue all the due process hurdles.  I mean, it’s “cruel and unusual” to make somebody go through that many appeals (that liberals themselves turned into a farce that drags on for years and years).  But at the same time, since they are open-borders loons who want to overwhelm and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America using the votes of illegal immigrants to do it, they claim the very opposite thing with immigration.  “It’s taking too long to execute criminals so the death penalty is bad” becomes “it’s not taking long enough to process tens – soon to be hundreds – of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In other words, liberals will literally sue you for zigging and they’ll sue you for sagging.  You can’t win with these hypocrite demoniacs.

Liberalism is circular reasoning that begins with, “I want x” or “I don’t want y” and then plays whatever rhetorical games are needed with the law to get what it wants.

They are not decent people who are driven by any code of ethics.  The ends justify the means for them every bit as much as it did for the Nazis or for the Stalinists.  And they will twist and pervert the system any way that is needed to force it to give them what they want.  Or else they’ll violently riot.  Because in their hearts they are FASCISTS.

We’re seeing it play out in Ferguson, Missouri as we speak: liberals aren’t interested in “justice” or “fairness.”  They want what they want and damn whatever laws or regulations or Constitution that gets in their wicked way.  So the Democrat governor calls for “aggressive prosecution” of a police officer even before a grand jury determines that there should even BE a prosecution:

Missouri governor way out of line
He has made a powder keg situation worse
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:00 pm

The governor of Missouri has become a textbook example of what a politician should not do or say during a crisis that is a racially-explosive powder keg just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

And really that’s being very kind to Jay Nixon. His words in an address on Tuesday night to Missouri residents — and therefore in this case the nation — were incredibly biased and spoken with an almighty know-it-all tone. Those words were outrageous.

Ferguson, Mo., is that powder keg because of the shooting of a young black man by a six-year veteran police officer on Aug. 9.

No one — absolutely no one — at this point can definitively say what happened leading up to the confrontation between 18-year-old Michael Brown, who is black, and officer Darren Wilson, who is white, nor can anyone relate accurately what transpired in the tragic couple minutes of the incident that claimed Brown’s life.

That’s the job of those investigating the situation, including a grand jury that convened on Wednesday.

Nixon on Tuesday night said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the case.

That’s not even subtle. He clearly said that there needs to be an aggressive prosecution of Wilson.

Only problem right now, governor, he hasn’t been charged with anything in the case and his side of the story hasn’t even been officially heard yet.

However, the governor of Missouri has charged the police officer with his words and given marching orders to prosecutors to go after him in court with every legal weapon in their arsenal.

The loss of Brown’s life in Ferguson is simply sad and dreadful. But in the name of justice let the process run its course to a conclusion wherever it goes.

As for the governor — what an horrendous abuse of his power

Democrats are people who side with vicious thugs who grab and intimidate business owners and commit strong arm robbery before striding down the middle of the street and punching cops in the face who get in their damn way.

And to quote Eric Holders Department of Injustice, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”  It doesn’t matter what “justice” is.  Justice is a totalitarian witch who is only “blind” because rabid hatred and contempt for everything that stands in the way of dictatorial liberalism MAKES her blind.  And bitter and wanting to burn and loot as well.  But don’t you EVER bring a lawsuit against a black in Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice.

The left wants the prosecutor in the Ferguson, Missouri case – whose been in office for 20 years and who was just re-elected only DAYS before the shooting – thrown off the case.  Because they want to jury-rig the outcome and get what they want.  THAT’S “justice” to the left: we get what we want and we destroy all obstacles in the way of getting what we want.  Or else we riot.

They’re claiming that since St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s father was gunned down by a black man that he’s biased.

Well, I’ll agree that if the prosecutor had said stuff like, “This is personal to me,” or else if he’d said “I’m here for the police,” or if he’d vowed to protect white people, etc., etc., he should be tossed.

But do you know who DID say crap like that coming from the opposite direction?  Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder.

Oh, yes, this matter is “deeply personal” to Eric Holder.  So let’s throw objectivity out the door and let our biases soar:

[…]

Of Holder’s arrival, USA Today writer Kevin Johnson observes that for the AG the situation in Ferguson is “deeply personal.” Johnson quotes as having told Ferguson residents at a community meeting yesterday:

I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

This of course is nothing new for Holder, who has made race an issue throughout his tenure as the nation’s top cop. As Jeff Dunetz reminds us, Holder has allowed his own skin color to interfere with his judgment as head of the Department of Justice, so why should his handling of the Freguson investigation proceed any differently?

Johnson has another quote by Holder, made to a group of community leaders assembled at a local community college. (As an aside, the AG certainly did a lot of speechifying on his first day in town). He said:

The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now. The world is watching because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it, and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.

Holder is assuming, like the mobs pillaging the town nightly, that racism is involved here. That is not just premature and reckless. It is blatantly outside the scope of the law. It is reminiscent of the very revealing comment about “empathy” made in 2007 by candidate Barack Obama, who said

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges. [Emphasis added]

Empathy and compassion are positive traits. But they have no business in a court of law. Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law and are sworn to render verdicts dispassionately, based on evidence and testimony. That is why justice as wearing a blindfold.
Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/08/21/holder-personal-thats-problem/#hHJ1v68WGF2fbIQw.99

Imagine the hellstorm had Bob McColloch said the racial equivalent: “I am the Prosecutor of St. Louis County, but I am also a white man.  I can remember when my daddy was murdered by a black thug…”

The NAACP is in this racial stew up to its neck.  Just imagine if “NAACP” stood for “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People.”

Just imagine if our society were actually FAIR and blacks got back the racial bullcrap they’ve been pissing at the rest of America for a change.

I can’t say for sure, but I’ve got a feeling that the black community would very quickly be willing to return to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” vision.  You know, the one where we’re all equal and nobody gets to be treated any different than anybody else rather than the one we’ve got where blacks get to be as racist as hell is hot while denying they’re capable of racism because they’ve got the most arbitrary and self-serving definition of “racism” in the entire space-time universe.

Eric Holder says he is “here for the community.”  By which he really means the vicious mob that’s been rioting and looting and burning.  He spent HOURS with the Brown family and with the same community rabble-rousers that his boss Obama came from.  But not one nanosecond with the cop who was viciously punched in the face before he was forced to go through a life-or-death struggle for his service weapon while he laid on his back in his own squad car with a giant thug on top of him.

Just imagine how you would feel if you were in a courtroom literally fighting for your life and the judge walked over and hugged your opponent just before taking the bench and calling the court to order.  That’s what’s going on here.

So the same left that demands McCulloch resign, recuse himself, be dismissed, whatever because of the threat of bias LOVES bias.  As long as that rabid bias is distorting legal reality to suit their race agenda.

So if the left can’t get McCulloch forced out, what’s their next move?  Delegitimize the grand jury in advance and threaten to riot if they don’t get their way.

A Democrat State Senator put her call for a race riot in the form of a “prediction”:

“If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur.”

Well, I mean, yeah, given the fact that you and your race-baiting pal Al Sharpton are going to go out and foment racial violence the way you do whenever you don’t get your way.

I want you to understand what’s going on here: one side – the conservatives – want a government that will basically leave them the hell alone.  They want a LIMITED federal government.  They want a federal government bound by the separation of powers.  They want laissez-faire free market capitalism, rather than liberal crony capitalist regulations that benefit one politically-chosen side and punish the other.  They want individual liberty and individual personal responsibility.  The other side wants more and more and more government.  They want a president who is “sort of God” who will run roughshod over the Constitution to impose his way by raw force.

One side wants life; the other side wants more abortion-murders than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, in the bloodiest war in all of human history combined.  One side wants marriage as all of human history has defined it; the other side wants the perversion of homosexual sodomy.  One side wants individual liberty and individual personal responsibility; the other side wants a totalitarian nanny-state that will redistribute the wealth the way they want to reward their friends and punish their enemies.  One side wants freedom according to the spirit that our founding fathers created America to be; the other side wants totalitarian government slavery in the mode of European socialist leaders like Hitler and Stalin.  And that side that wants all these evil things will break any law, violate any regulation, interfere with justice in any way, to GET their way.

The only way to have a fair fight here is if BOTH sides were out to use the raw power of government and the courts to get their way to crush and to rule over the other.  But only the rabid left is doing that.

Which is why America is doomed and which is why the Antichrist is coming just as the Bible told us the ultimate big-government totalitarian dictator would come.

Just realize that we are dealing with an ideology in the left that defines “justice” as “we get our way no matter what” and “injustice” as if we don’t get our way we’re going to start rioting.”

 

Advertisements

For The Record, Yes, Obama’s Dithering Delay In Syria Could Cost USA Dearly. In Fact, IT ALREADY HAS.

September 3, 2013

Two years ago, Obama told the world that Bashar al-Assad had to go.  For two years, Obama did NOTHING to bring that statement about.

One year ago, Obama said that any use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for him.  Syria used chemical weapons FOURTEEN TIMES before cynical politics more than American credibility and prestige prompted Obama to finally do anything while 120,000 Syrians perished miserably.

There was a time to act in Syria.  The problem is that it was a long damn time ago.  Tragically for the world, Obama dithered and demagogued rather than led and acted.

Now we face nothing a series of impossible choices.  If we do nothing, we embolden Syria and worse – Iran – to continue to not only use weapons of mass destruction, but to build nukes so we can REALLY face a global crisis.  When Obama was elected, it amounted to a 100% money-back guarantee that Iran would get its nuclear weapons program because Obama and Democrats would not stand up strongly when we needed a red damn line that actually had some giant fangs in it.

And yes, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is all about Democrat dithering (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  You literally can’t shake a stick at all this evidence against Democrats and against the Obama regime.  We saw all this coming a long time ago but Obama dithered.  Now we’re seeing Islamic jihadism resurgent around the Islamic world; we’re seeing strong stable allies like Egypt fall and Jordan jeopardized.  Obama has emboldened our enemies at the very same time he has caused all of our former friends and allies that George W. Bush certainly had to distrust us and refuse to back us.

One of the things that is going on is the dismissal of U.S. intelligence proof that Syria was behind the use of chemical weapons.  Do you want to know WHY?  Go back to Democrats doing everything they could to undermine American intelligence JUST BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH WAS PRESIDENT and you’ll see why we distrust our intelligence now.  If that isn’t enough, just take a look at all the evidence that Obama massively and illegally expanded these intelligence programs after deceitfully and sanctimoniously saying he wouldn’t be like Bush and he would end these things that he instead made far larger and far more dangerous.

Obama claimed that Bush had no right to authorize an attack on another country without congressional approval.  But apparently that was because he felt that Bush was merely a man while Obama views himself as some kind of a pharaoh god king who transcends the limitations he asserts for mere mortals.  Because he claims that by virtue of his deity he has the authority that he said that Bush did not have.  Obama argued that Bush had to have a United Nations mandate then and thinks that he doesn’t have to get one now because it turns out that with countries like Russia and China it’s just as impossible for Pharaoh god king Obama to get UN backing as it was for George W. Bush.  Obama claimed that Bush was some kind of rogue cowboy who acted alone when Bush had 48 allies who were willing to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND while Obama can’t even get England to back us in lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria.

Let’s go back and remember what Obama said when George W. Bush was president and Obama was just another dishonest and dishonorable demagogue rather than THE dishonest and dishonorable demagogue-in-chief:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…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.

Replace the name “Saddam Hussein” with Bashar al-Assad and explain the difference to me.  Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own people to an even greater extent than Bashar al-Assad has done.  There were at least 300,000 in mass in mass graves in Iraq.  If it wasn’t right to go then it isn’t right to go now.  Which is why the rest of the world – by its isolation of Obama – is pretty much telling us with their silence that this is “A dumb war.  A rash war.”  And they’re doing so by the same despicable arguments that one Barack Hussein Obama once employed when he was doing everything he could to undermine one George W. Bush.

You kind of want to know why “an outrageous chemical attack” is only “outrageous” when a Democrat president who used to say it doesn’t matter suddenly decides for his own naked political interests comes to the opposite conclusion from what he thought when a Republican was running things.  You want to know why John Kerry as Secretary of State asserts that doubts about the intelligence amount to cowardice and treason when he was one of the many Democrats who publicly doubted the intelligence when a Republican president’s picture hung in the CIA and NSA buildings.

That’s why the question as to whether chemical weapons were used isn’t “settled.”  And of course, it’s why even IF the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, it’s no reason to believe Bashar al-Assad authorized it.  And if you think otherwise, liberal, then explain to me how the IRS used the equivalent of chemical weapons against Tea Party conservatives but Obama can’t be blamed for it.

You start to see how Obama’s constant double-standards has undermined his own perch at the top of the wobbling pole.

Obama needs to finally OWN his disgrace.  HE disgraced the presidency both BEFORE and WHILE he was president.

The sheer weakness and complete lack of honor of this man who sits in our White House makes me sick.  But Democrats have been despicable for decades now.

Obama assured us “that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”  I would argue that is hogwash.

A news article has a sentence that pretty much puts the kibosh to the Obama lie (quickly butt-kissed by the career butt-kissers at the Pentagon) that delaying the strike against Syria won’t compromise anything:

Pentagon officials say strike won’t be hurt by delay
Jim Michaels and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 11:12 a.m. EDT September 1, 2013

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials said Saturday that U.S. intelligence capabilities allow the military to track any movement of Syrian targets, which means a missile attack against Syria would be effective despite President Obama’s decision to delay a strike until Congress gives its approval.

Obama said Saturday that waiting would not weaken the U.S. ability to strike Syria if he gives the order. He said Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people deserves a military response.

If Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces try to hide its military assets, U.S. intelligence capabilities can find them, defense officials told USA TODAY. The U.S. military will also likely target buildings.

The United States has powerful signal intelligence capabilities, with the use of drones and satellites, and has the ability to monitor communications.

“Our intelligence and targeting capabilities offer the president and the nation tremendous advantages,” said a defense official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak about a potential strike.

Moreover, the official pointed out, buildings that could be hit by missiles do not move.

However, the extra time will let Assad move weapons, such as artillery or rocket launchers, into populated areas and use civilians as human shields, said Charles Wald, a retired Air Force general who led the planning of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban.

“It’s almost immoral to give the enemy more time to prepare,” Wald said.

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations,” said Colin Kahl, an associate professor at Georgetown University and former Pentagon official. “But that was happening already,” he said.

A delay may add some complexity to the mission, said a second defense official speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason. But the delay does not translate into protection for Syria’s military assets. U.S. intelligence and targeting technologies provide “tremendous advantages,” the official said, adding that if the Syrian regime thinks it will gain by a delay, it would be sorely mistaken.

Obama said Saturday that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”

The Navy has positioned five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, within cruise missile striking distance of Syria. The ships can each carry up to 90 cruise missiles, though typically they carry less in order to make room for other weapons and personnel. A Marine troop-carrying ship has joined them.

U.S. military officials and analysts have said any attack will be aimed at military and intelligence targets, particularly units linked to the Aug. 21 chemical attack. It will not be designed to remove the Assad regime.

“We continue to refine our targeting based on the most recent intelligence, and the chairman assured the president that we would have appropriate targeting options ready when he called for them,” said Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for Dempsey.

Here’s the sentence:

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations

Yes, smarmy, arrogant Obama-worshipers: you’re right that Syria would probably not be able either move many of the targets that military planners are targeting in a manner that would keep us from re-locating them.  But Syria doesn’t HAVE to move the targets.

Syria has two other things they could move while keeping all of their precious targets in plain view.

One would be his chemical weapons.  If the U.S. were to hit any of those chemical weapons, we would send giant lethal clouds of WMD in whatever direction the wind was blowing.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

If you think the Arab world isn’t ALREADY pissed off enough at Obama’s incompetence, well, we’d find out pretty quick that nope, they’re capable of being even MORE pissed off if Obama ignites any poison gas.

The other would be civilians – a.k.a. “human shields.”  Syria could chain a bunch of crying women and children to every one of their chemical weapons located at every single one of the locations the U.S. has targeted.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

And it would be Obama murdering them, wouldn’t it?  I mean, it wouldn’t have been Syria that detonated those chemical warheads; it would have been Obama and his God Damned America that did it.  American cruise missiles would hit, and then all of a sudden there goes tons of poison gas from the very sites that those missiles had just hit.

What would our “plan B” look like if Syria were to use all the time and heads-up that Obama has given them to pull off that trick???  What would Obama’s “narrow” option be then???

Now, we can hope that Syria’s leaders are as incompetent and stupid as OUR leaders are.  And we can hope they won’t think of that.  But according to the article above, it pretty much sounds like they already have.

But it’s just hard to imagine anybody else would be as incompetent and stupid as our leaders have proven themselves to be.

Obama’s delaying could also give Russia more than enough time to position weapons capable of sinking a U.S. warship, if that’s what Russia wanted to do through its proxy Syria.  This isn’t the same Russia that was weak when Bush I and Bush II were presidents; it is a Russia resurgent under the weakness of Obama and it is a Russia that seems quite willing to let Obama know what it thinks of him.

That’s one reason why we shouldn’t compare Syria to Iraq, as Obama says we shouldn’t: Syria is armed with more recent Russian weaponry given to them by a far more dangerous and aggressive Russia.

What would happen if Obama tried to act tough to cover himself for his “red line” idiocy and Syria attacked us right back?  Would Obama skulk home with his tail between his legs or would it be Gulf of Tonkin, part deux???

I’m going to guess one of the reasons the U.S. strike will be utterly feckless and ineffective will be that there just won’t be any target we can strike that something really bad wouldn’t happen were we to hit it.

Any strike against Syria frankly already should have HAPPENED.  Any strike on any target should be a) massive and b) by as much surprise as we can attain.  Thanks to Obama’s weakness, we shall have neither.

What should Republicans do?  How should they respond?

Well, if they want to win this POLITICALLY they should be like Democrats were with Bush.  Do you notice Obama is going to Republicans trying to find somebody to help him?  I mean, where are the damn Democrats?  That’s because no Democrats have anywhere near the courage and integrity needed to do the right thing in this nation of God Damned America.  Here’s a statement in a Reuters article about which party has that integrity to do the right thing and which one has its finger to the political winds:

No one knowledgeable about Congress was willing to predict with any confidence how it would deal with a resolution to permit strikes in Syria.

The uncertainty is compounded by Obama’s often strained and distant relationship with Congress.

A House Democratic aide, on condition of anonymity, said “the vote will depend on the Republicans” because Democrats “will be split down the middle.”

That’s it, dishonorable Democrats.  Vote “present,” just like your messiah did when he was a senator.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you are.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you’ve been for well over forty years.

Do you want to know where Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is on Syria?  Good luck finding out where that cynical coward stands:

One voice in Washington that has been remarkably absent from this week’s Syria debate has been that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t said anything at all about President Obama’s plans for military strikes against the dictatorship in Damascus. As someone who dominated the US foreign policy landscape over the past four years, Clinton’s silence on Syria is striking. What explains this?

I mean, hey, other than the Benghazi debacle where somehow HRC was strangely completely absent and to this day nobody knows where the hell Obama was, wasn’t Hillary Clinton supposed to be the greatest Secretary of State in the history of the world???  Surely such a great statesperson has something to say.  But what we’ve got from her instead is this.

And what are key Obama figures doing on Syria?  Playing naked politics even as their false-messiah boss keeps disingenuously asserting that stuff like this transcends politics.  As soon as Obama got through meeting with his political advisers and decided to “punt” to Congress, David Axelrod – who basically CREATED “Black Jesus” Obama – immediately came out and wrote:

“Big move by POTUS.  Consistent with his principles.  Congress is now the dog that caught the car.  Should be a fascinating week!”

Of course, just the day before getting congressional approval had NOT been “consistent with Obama’s principles” because Obama had repeatedly said he didn’t need to do it and had no intention of doing it.  Maybe Axelrod was describing “Obama’s principles” when BUSH was president???  And note how politically and how cynically politically Axelrod puts this act of cynical presidential hand washing.

And keep in mind that Obama punted to Congress when Congress won’t be back to do anything about it until at least September 9.  When they DO come back, they’ll have their hands more than full dealing with the budget and the sequester and the debt limit.  And I’ll bet you anything you want that Obama will be politicizing the hell out of the whole godawful mess.  Because that’s the only thing he can do well.

You see, if Republicans want to win, they need to be the same sort of naked gutless and soulless political opportunists that Democrats have been.  They need to hold back on the vote until AFTER the Democrats have voted.  If the Democrats split down the middle, defeat the damn authorization bill and blame Democrats and say that the president couldn’t even convince his own damn party.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if Bush were president.  And then start pounding the airwaves with the “Obama has isolated himself and isolated America” rhetoric.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if the shoe were on the other foot.

Republicans – if they were like Democrats – would be flooding the airwaves crying that Obama is taking us to war only because his foolish “red line” bluff was called and he looks like a weakling and a fool now.  The only difference is they would actually be RIGHT to say that whereas the Democrats really don’t give a rodent’s posterior about the actual facts when they demagogue.

The biggest political problem Republicans have is that, unlike Democrats, they actually care about their country rather than using every issue as an opportunity to hurt the other side.  And in this God Damn America that Obama and Democrats have forged, doing the right thing morally is the wrong thing politically.

The day Republicans start acting like the Democrat Party, America will fall.  Because the Democrat Party is the party of Pandering via-socialist giveaways and it is the party of weakness and suicide.

In the meantime, Obama’s dithering and delays and weakness have already irreparably harmed America.  This is the Arab consensus of Bush v. Obama:

Mohammed Yassin, a 45-year-old Palestinian in Gaza said Obama did not look like  the “tough guy Bush was”. Employing an Arab nickname for Obama, derived from his  Kenyan father’s name, Yassin said, smiling: “Abu Hussein has no balls.”

“No balls Obama.”  This is a particularly dangerous attitude in a part of the world where ONLY dictators can govern because only strength and power are respected and any hint of weakness is something to exploit and attack.

Even the überüberliberal Los Angeles Times acknowledges “No Balls Obama’s” lack of resolve with their headline:

To Mideast, U.S. policy on region seems adrift
Middle East friends and foes alike seem to find President Obama’s lack of decisiveness confounding.
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Jeffrey Fleishman and Paul Richter
September 2, 2013, 7:00 a.m.

Is there any wonder the Arab world believes Obama has no balls when even his most ardent, most partisan, most ideologue supporters (i.e. leftwing journalists) don’t think he’s got any balls???

In the Middle East in particular, what Obama just did is tantamount to a man backing down from a fight in front of everybody after doing a lot of tough talking, but saying he’d come back later (with his friends from Congress – and THEY’D show you!).  Oh, and when Obama and his friends finally show up sometime later, they won’t be kicking ass because that would involve them putting their boots on the ground, wouldn’t it?  Nope; they’ll come in with a little token show of force and a lot more tough posturing.  The obvious conclusion to everybody who watches Obama cringe away to Congress is that he’s a coward and a weakling.

That’s why Obama is less respected and more hated by Arabs in the Middle East than George W. Bush ever was.  That is why Obama’s approval in the Middle East is lower than Bush’s EVER was.  That is why the United States is less popular under the failed regime of Barack Obama in the Middle East than it EVER was during the Bush administration.

For the record, Bush demanded that Libya dismantle its chemical weapons, and Gaddafi took one look at what he’d just seen Bush do to Saddam Hussein and he dismantled his chemical weapons.  THAT’S the only way to deter a threat in the Middle East.

Obama projected abject weakness and indecision and wavering in the Middle East at a time that we needed to project strength and stability and resolve.  And the Middle East has dissolved into chaos as a result of Obama.

America’s image as a nation of strength and resolve has been pissed away.  And we are back in the days that Bill Clinton created when one Osama bin Laden watched years of Clinton’s cowardice and concluded that:

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press

That was before the last massive attack against America.

Next up, a nuclear armed Iran with no fear of America and a rabid desire to strike at the Great Satan.  Because, let’s suppose Republicans come through when coward Democrats won’t and Congress authorizes the “very limited strike” against Syria that Obama wants.  Is anybody truly so stupid that they think that a “very limited strike” will frighten Iran away from crossing the finish line with its nuclear program and becoming IMPERVIOUS to such strikes?  Does anybody actually believe that a few cruise missiles will do anything other than EMBOLDEN Iran?

The day that America elected the weakling Obama was the day that America voted for ultimate nuclear Armageddon.  And every day that passes makes that fact more and more clear.

P.S. For the record, I am dead set AGAINST the kind of strike that Obama has called for because it would do nothing save allow Obama to declare that he’d lived up to his “red line” bovine feces.  That said, I’d be FOR a strike in Syria: provided it was a DECISIVE strike that truly made Syria rue their use of chemical weapons and Iran think twice and then think twice again about their nuke program.  I would like to see John Boehner present TWO bills authorizing the use of force, with one representing Obama’s gutless limited approach and the other representing the kind of sustained ass-kicking that the situation calls for.  And within that latter bill a clear statement declaring that anything SHORT of a sustained ass-kicking has been specifically banned by that bill.  And we would put boots on the ground ONLY to establish a perimeter around and then remove the chemical weapons stockpiles from Syria.  And let’s vote and see what happens.

Btw, if you want to know why we didn’t find Saddam’s wmd stockpile when we invaded Iraq, it was because Saddam sent them to his fellow Ba’athist thugs in Syria.

As part of any resolution to attack Syria, we would have to have a contingency plan for dealing with the al Qaeda element taking over if our strikes collapsed Assad’s regime.  We would be voting to hang in there and help – by whatever means were necessary – to secure a democratic successor to the thugs who now run the country.  Or at LEAST a “pro-democracy thug” such as what we’ve now got and frankly had before with Mubarak in Egypt.

Nothing less is adequate.  Nothing less will do anything but create more harm and more havoc than good.

Furthermore, given that the United Nations Secretary General has already stated that anything Obama does SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY DAMN NOTHING would be illegal, either do nothing or stomp enough to leave a nice big splash.  If we lob so much as ONE missile into Syria, it will be an act of war.  Don’t be half-assed when you play at war, Obama.  If you want to send “a shot across the bow,” please do it here rather than with your toys stationed in the Mediterranean.

Also for the record, I think the reason the world has so completely isolated Barack Obama is that the world wants to back a winner.  Forty-eight nations got behind Bush and put boots on the ground because Bush was a winner and they could count on him to hang tough.  Nobody is backing Obama because they know that he is a loser who will abandon both his positions and his friends who got behind his positions the moment it serves his political posturing to do so.

Obama Cynically Urges Iraq To Stall US Withdrawel

September 16, 2008

This may be one of those moments when even Barack Obama’s staunchest supporters have to face up to the possibility that their candidate is a man of contemptible character.

Many analysts have claimed that Barack Obama overcame Hillary Clinton primarily because he was more against the war than she was, such that the liberal base of the Democratic Party believed Obama would end the war and bring the troops home.

So it is simply staggering to hear that – while calling for a rapid withdrawel of American troops from Iraq – Obama privately urged the Iraqis to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

It is difficult NOT to believe that such a disingenuous request is not motivated by political self-interests.  If Republicans are bringing the troops home, Obama can’t claim that he should be elected so that he can bring the troops home.

One thing is for certain: this matter demands an investigation.  If it is true, it ought to break Obama’s career.

Here is the article from The New York Post:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years – departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only “notional,” making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Liberals see the most refreshing hope for change in history; I see the most cynical and disingenuous candidate who has ever run for high office.

Obama and the Democrats will not allow the war in Iraq to be viewed as any kind of success.  It is vital to their interests to argue that America failed, that it lost, that it has been defeated (e.g., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “I believe that this war is lost“).  Why?  Because they have so dedicated themselves to American failure that a victory would be bad for them (and anyone who doubts this need only recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s acknowledgment that good news in Iraq amounted to a “real big problem” for Democrats).