As we debated America hurtling itself toward another war (this time Syria) over the Labor Day break a lot of people missed the importance of what was really going on. Our President was transferring the responsibility of directing the armed forces to Congressional vote, something the founders never intended, in an action designed to weaken the Constitution.
While the President has to notify Congress of any continuing military action overseas, it’s clear the responsibility of initializing military action falls solely on the Presidency. Even more, the War Powers Act specifically states the President has 30 days to notify Congress and ask for funding for any military action—a de facto agreement of the Constitution that such authority is the responsibility of the President.
The President MUST have this authority for the safety of a nation. He or she cannot afford to hesitate in matters of national safety or security. If President Obama feels that this is an imminent threat to US interests he must use the military judiciously and quickly to quell that threat. If a threat is not imminent enough to direct military forces, then there is no need to address Congress for a vote.
A vote on what by the way? Is Obama asking for Congress to declare war on Syria? Hardly. As a matter of fact, the last time Congress was asked to declare war, President Roosevelt already had moved forces against the Japanese and taken domestic and overseas actions before addressing them. It’s not like asking Congress for a declaration of war is asking permission to protect the country—its asking for funding for a serious, long term commitment of US manpower and treasure.
A few missiles at Syria to ‘send a message’ would hardly constitute that.
It indicates a more serious problem in this country than the specter of chemical weapons in Syria would pose. We have a President who is shirking the responsibility of his office in order for political expedience. Being the guy at the top means sometimes you have to do things that may be unpopular or politically risky. That is certainly doubly true when it comes to national security risks, even though one would be hard pressed to find the risk to US interests in the case of Syria.
It’s not like the President hasn’t made decisions that are politically unpopular in the past either. Obamacare, gun legislation, the DREAM act etc., are all unpopular laws and political agenda issues that he has pushed past Congress by executive order. Why is this time different? Obama has routinely circumvented Congress saying that ‘he will act when Congress won’t’. Now, all of sudden, Congress is relevant again and he won’t act when this is one time he has the authority to.
There can be only one reason for this- no matter how it turns out (which most likely will be badly), he is going to blame Congress. He is going to blame budget problems on Congress because this will cost money. If people are killed, he will blame Congress. If things blow up, he will blame Congress. There is no way for Congress to escape blame for this. Even if Assad surrenders tomorrow and rainbows and unicorns appear over Syria, Congress will be blamed for not acting sooner.
Congress should go to the President and tell him that he must make this decision on his own, and that to come to Congress if he wishes to continue the conflict past 30 days.
That’s the law. That’s the Constitution. I know it seems to be treated as a paper bag on the bottom of a taxicab these days, but someone in the Senate should argue the point.
Otherwise you establish the precedent that it can be ignored.
The war on women has taken another ugly turn at the 2013 Video Music Awards this weekend as beloved peaches and cream American sweetheart Hannah Montana was transformed into a gyrating lip smacking slut named Miley Cyrus in order to appease the masses who were demanding fresh meat.
Before you go into some tirade about how it’s done to divert attention from President Amateur Hour driving our nation into yet another war in Syria, let me direct you to the fact that this conversion has been going on for some time with women by the left, and not just Ms. Cyrus who did it to garner some attention for obviously vacuous ego and head.
Exposing our children to too much sex and immorality at an earlier and earlier age now has become de rigueur in Hollywood for some time. The liberal society of mental midgets has somehow defined a woman who exposes herself and uses her genitalia as a flag as ‘liberated’ and anyone who gets out of line by saying the emperor has no clothes on – literally- is ‘slut shaming’ and racist. While I’m no prude, I also know parading around and proclaiming you like to have sex with anything and anyone is a sure sign of mental illness or moral depravity, and possibly both.
It’s not like this is anything new either. The majority of Oscars won by women actresses have been women who played sexualized characters. Just last year Jennifer Lawrence won for playing Tiffany Maxwell, a widowed sex addict. Two years ago it’s was Natalie Portman who played a hyper sexualized bi-curious ballerina. This list goes on and on. The days of Donna Reed playing a devoted housewife are over. I’m surprised Meryl Streep’s performance as Thatcher in the ‘Iron Lady’ wasn’t about bondage.
Looking at real life, women are trivialized sexually in government too. Women that are abused and bedraggled by a groper mayor in San Diego received no recourse until the left finally policed its own and forced Filner to resign—with no apology given or explanation. The manta was ‘he needed help’. While boycotting Rush, NOW ( National Organization for Women) endorsed Jerry Brown for Governor of California despite both using exactly the same pejorative term for someone they disagreed with. Their website complains about Super Bowl ads that supposedly objectify women, yet endorse Bill Clinton with his history of sexual misadventures.
Women are publicly beaten, stoned, run over by cars, and thrown acid on by Islamic fundamentalists at home and abroad. Yet we are told that the United Nations is looking into America’s record on human rights violations in regards to women’s rights. Sandra Fluke, a modern day Verruca Salt is canonized by the left for standing up for women’s rights by demanding those rights be enabled by putting women at the mercy of government edict, forever dependent upon the laws its makes. Our most famous women are orally enhanced, balloon chested concubines whose only claim to fame is that they made popular pornography they self-describe as ‘sex-tapes’.
In schools, young girls are encouraged by the powers that be to explore their own sexuality at younger and younger ages, so much so, that vaccinations against STD’s which lead to cancer are now mandatory. Planned Parenthood’s ‘successes’ have led to an all-time high unwed mother’s pregnancy rate, and teen pregnancy is only lower now to historical highs because the birth rate of American has been halved in the last forty or so years.
The ‘war on women’ by the left takes no prisoners as our daughters are morphed from life giving sisters of Artemis, into daughters of Sappho from the Isle of Lesbos. They are transmuted to be sexual slaves for the worker drones we pump out of overpriced colleges for this leftist fantasy world they call utopia.
Shocked or disturbed by Miley Cyrus at the VMA? Hardly, it’s just the next step in the progressive agenda.
Thomas Purcell is a syndicated columnist and author and can be found at his website, libertyneversleeps.com.
Syria has heated up its atrocities by using chemical weapons against its own people this week according to some sources.
While it is not our place to invade attack or otherwise interfere in a civil war, one has to wonder as to the intent of our President and our foreign policy. It continues to vary wildly and that is never a good thing. One does not know where the United States stands on many issues, and that is creating a power vacuum overseas, which is leading to more violence.
President Obama has been inconsistent from day one on the Middle East. He condemns Republicans for the ‘war on women’, but is silent on the barbaric treatment of women around the world by Islamic extremists, including attacks on foreign tourists. He promotes the ideology of peace and wins a Nobel Prize but continue to launch drones into foreign lands and murder their tribal leaders. Obama says the use of chemical weapons is game changer, and then continues to pursue a policy of abject non-interference when it is obvious Syria uses them. Men are killed at the Benghazi consulate, and when other US interests are threatened he simple tucks tail and runs rather than defend them.
Our foreign policy is all over the place, and bears no cohesion to domestic issues which ideologically are intertwined.
Violence is foreign countries is a foregone conclusion as is overseas wars. They start and stop all the time. But the United States certainly does not have to help it along. The US has been a stabilizing force in the world, and not just because of its military. Its economy and trade established ties between nations; its bully pulpit of the Presidency establishes a moral compass the world follows. The threat of intervention brings people to the bargaining table.
All of this has been consistently misused by this President. Our economic policies have damaged our economy to the point where foreign aid is threatened and becomes a target by Congressmen. Our military does not act where it needs to and over reacts in places where it is not wanted. We use subterfuge and espionage against our own people, but where it is so desperately needed to support our interest overseas it is almost nonexistent.
The incompetence is startling to the point where the American people begin to think its own government is an enemy, acting in this fashion to bring upon the electorate a police state tyranny and destabilize the world for its own prurient interests.
The worst part? Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are now at risk for extermination. Whole populations could simply cease to exist as a result of this careless ignorance of foreign lands and what drives world peace. The US has largely kept the peace since 1945 not because of its nuclear weapons, but because of skillful management of its hard won hegemony.
This is what Mitt Romney meant last year when he questioned Obama’s foreign policy in the debates. It’s too bad the American people could not understand this.
Worse for the world, they simply may not care.