Hypocrisy Left And Right

[John81]

Anyone notice the silence coming from both the Left and Right regarding OBama's illegal, in terms of violating the Constitution as well as international law, with regards to his war actions within Syria?

 

The Left and Right both have spoken out regarding this matter in the past yet because OBama is  "their guy" the Left is now quiet and because so many on the Right were hammering OBama for not taking military action within Syria (and some even calling for wider war), they are silent upon the matter of legality too.

 

Prior to this, the OBama Administration had said such actions would be illegal without congressional approval and international support.

 

Several nations have spoken out against the illegal war within Syria being waged by America. Even several of the nations helping in the the wider campaign are only engaging within Iraq as they are unwilling to break international law by waging war within Syria.

 

To make matters worse, OBama went before the world and basically declared America is just as bad, if not worse, than the countries he's waging war in! He went further in declaring this war has nothing to do with Islam or culture, and even proclaimed that millions of Muslims in America are a vital part of the American fabric.

 

Is it any wonder so much of the world has a dim view of America and many who were once infatuated with OBama have come to disdain him?

 

Much of the Western and Islamic world cheered the new presidency of OBama. Now it seems most of the Western world and much of the Islamic world will be very glad to see his time in office finished.

 

How much more like Rome can America become before she suffers a similar fate?

[heartstrings]

Just like Rome, America is filled with debauchery,  Or government is being taken over by the prideful. the power hungry, the oppressive and moral decadent. Our complacency and "political correctness" is allowing the "barbarian tribes" to subvert , terrorize, and freely propagate within our borders: Just like Rome. I did not vote for Mr. OBama because of the liberal agenda of him and his ilk. Having said that, I stand behind his military action against those in both Syria and Iraq and any other 'barbarians' who dare to oppress, to behead our people and seek to destroy Americans, Christians, and our ally, God's nation...Israel.

[John81]

When military action is needed, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Should we not support the right and legal method?

 

If someone attacks someone I love, I want justice done, but not at the hands of a mOB (for example).

 

Those in government, and outside, who claim the moral high ground on following the Constitution, abiding by international law, and calling others to the same  one day, only to sing a different tune when it serves their purposes show their hypocrisy and disdain for the rule of law and any moral high ground.

 

I support taking action against our enemies but I cannot support hypocritical and illegal means of doing so.

[HappyChristian]

Actually, the Right is talking about it...just not getting a lot of media attention.  The Middle - erroneously called the Right - however, are loving it.  Boehner has recently called BO his best friend.  Boehner is not Right, nor has he ever been.  He is a RINO all the way. As are McCain, Graham, etc...none of them Right. All of them Moderate or befuddled as to what the Constitution truly says.

 

Cruz is against intervention in Syria.  He is for getting rid of ISIS, as it is most definitely in America's best interest to do so.  And that is in line with the Constitution.

 

Rand Paul said that BO's policy is wrong.  

 

Sessions, Barrasso,COBurn, Enzi, Heller, Lee, etc. also voted against arming the Syrian rebels.  Although I wouldn't call COBurn the Right, those who are actually on the Right - who want to stand by the Constitution - did vote against it.  And have been vocal. But again, the news media isn't real loud about it.  Although some of them have done so to paint the opponents in a bad light.

 

American government is indeed filled with folk who don't want to follow the Constitution.  There are some who do. They are trying.  We need to help them by getting others in there....(and we need to stop calling the moderates Right...)

[John81]

Cruz will be appearing on James ROBison's TV show in a few days, maybe he will address more there.

[HappyChristian]

He likely will. He's not afraid to speak, that's for sure.  There is a bit out there, but it's usually presented in a negative light.  

[Alimantado]

To make matters worse, OBama went before the world and basically declared America is just as bad, if not worse, than the countries he's waging war in! He went further in declaring this war has nothing to do with Islam or culture, and even proclaimed that millions of Muslims in America are a vital part of the American fabric.

 

Is it any wonder so much of the world has a dim view of America and many who were once infatuated with OBama have come to disdain him?

 

I'm not sure if this is what your point was, John, but I don't reckon folk judge a foreign country good or bad on its leader's own say so.

 

When military action is needed, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Should we not support the right and legal method?

 

If someone attacks someone I love, I want justice done, but not at the hands of a mOB (for example).

 

John, I'm sure when folk were talking about fair play in conflict a while back (I think at the time leaders were calling it 'proportionate response') you scoffed at the entire notion.

[John81]

A Basket of Snakes

By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Friday - September 26, 2014

 

"Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

 

"War's very OBject is victory, not prolonged indecision."

 

So said Gen. MacArthur in some of the wisest counsel the old soldier ever gave his countrymen.

 

Yet, "prolonged indecision" would seem the essence of the war the president has begun to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State.

 

For, following only one night of bombing in Syria, Gen. Bill Mayville, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, asked to estimate how long this new war would last, replied: "I would think of it in terms of years."

 

"Years," the general said.

 

Yet, though we are already heavily into bombing, the president has no congressional authorization for this war in Syria.

 

Even Republicans are leery of voting for a war in Syria before the November elections. A third of the House GOP voted no to arming and training the Syrian rebels. The Democrats are even more wary.

 

And how are we going to "destroy" ISIS when OBama has ruled out U.S. combat troops and not one NATO or Arab ally has offered to send combat troops?

 

Consider Turkey. With its 400,000-man army, 1,000 planes, 3,600 tanks, 3,000 artillery pieces and self-propelled guns, the Turks, the largest military power in the Middle East, could make hash of the Islamic State.

 

Why have they not done so?

 

Because Turkish President Erdogan detests President Assad of Syria and has looked the other way as volunteers, including Turks, have crossed his border into Syria to join ISIS.

 

Up until now, this NATO ally has been a silent partner of ISIS. And, even now, Ankara has not volunteered to fight the Islamic State.

 

For Turkey is predominantly Sunni, and many Sunni see the Islamic State as a ruthless but effective ally against a Shia threat represented by Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah.

 

If the Turkish army is not going to intervene in Syria against ISIS, and if OBama has ruled out U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria, where will the soldiers come from to dislodge the Islamic State from the Indiana-sized territory it has seized?

 

The Kurds can hold Erbil with U.S. air support. Iraq's regime, backed by its Shia militias, can hold Baghdad. But can the Iraqi army retake Fallujah, Mosul or Anbar, from which they so recently ran away?

 

Who are the major fighting forces in Syria who have for years been holding the line against ISIS? Answer: the Syrian army, Hezbollah troops from Lebanon, and Iranians, backed by Putin's Russia.

 

Denouncing the Islamic State for its beheadings of the two Americans and one British aid worker, OBama declared at the U.N.:

 

"There can be no reasoning -- no negotiation -- with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death."

 

Strong words, some of the strongest our NOBel Peace Prize-winning president has used in six years.

 

Yet, for three years, it has been NATO ally Turkey and Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been clandestinely aiding this "network of death." And it has been Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia that have been resisting this "network of death."

 

A year ago, the American people rose up to demand that OBama and John Kerry keep us out of Syria's civil war, specifically, that they not carry out their threats to bomb the army of Bashar Assad.

 

Had it not been for Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, the network of death OBama, rightly excoriated from that U.N. podium, might by now be establishing its caliphate, not in Raqqa but Damascus.

 

Before we go any deeper into Syria, Congress needs to be called back to debate and vote on whether to authorize this new war.

 

For this war against the Islamic State seems, for some in that blood-soaked region, not so much to be a war of good against evil, but the first of several wars they want America to fight.

 

For them, the Islamic State is to be destroyed by the Americans. Then the Assad regime is to be brought down by the Americans. Then Iran is to be smashed by the Americans. Everyone in the Middle East seems to have in mind some new war for the Americans to fight.

 

How many such wars are in our vital interests?

 

While, undeniably, the Islamic State has shown itself beyond the pale with its beheading of innocents and its massacres of soldiers who have surrendered, let us not forget that our allies abetted these monsters, while adversaries we have designated as terrorists and state sponsors of terror were fighting them.

 

Lord Palmerston had a point when he said Great Britain has no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

 

Those interests should determine our policy.

 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/basket-snakes-6981

[HappyChristian]

I'm not saying that Buchanan doesn't make some good points (even though I haven't liked him a long while), but I'm curious (and not meaning to start something), but why is it wrong to quote Beck on the basis of him being a Mormon, but it's okay to quote Catholic Buchanan?  Just askin'...

[ThePilgrim]

If a persons religious beliefs are not a part of the article, I see nothing wrong as long as the facts are correct.  I the facts are OBviously tainted by religious beliefs then there would be a prOBlem.

It is usually not to difficult to tell if it is.

[HappyChristian]

If a persons religious beliefs are not a part of the article, I see nothing wrong as long as the facts are correct.  I the facts are OBviously tainted by religious beliefs then there would be a prOBlem.

It is usually not to difficult to tell if it is.

I agree totally.  Just making a point of comments lOBbed at Beck's beliefs as a reason not to believe he has credibility.  Double standard, IMO.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Many people say we have a federal democracy but a better label is Hierarchal Govt.

 

we have not had a by the people for the people govt since the mid 1830's.   The original govt setup by the founders only lasted a little less than 50 years before it was reverted back to Hierarchal (Monarchy is a Hierarchal govt).

 

the co-equal govt set up by the founders is based on two things that were effectively eliminated 1) co-equal representation, 2) Self ruling States.  Both of these help to keep govt small.

[ThePilgrim]

The actual word that is used to define our government is "Oligarchy": a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

It is a rare occasion when anybody agrees with me but this time I am not alone in my opinion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

[John81]

I've no prOBlem with the factual statements Beck makes. While there were prOBlems with his TV show on Fox, he was exposing some facts that many don't want made common. This is why he was canned.

 

My prOBlem with Beck is him portraying himself as both Mormon and Christian, declaring the two are the same, and then he often mixes in Mormon teaching with his speeches.

 

Buchanan has governmental experience and a keen sense of the times we live in. If one has read his writings for a number of years it's amazing at how right on point he's been. So much of what he warned about regarding world affairs, domestic matters, politics and more have been proven correct.

 

While he's certainly not flawless, I would consider Buchanan's thoughts on these matters before Beck's.

[HappyChristian]

I actually don't like either one. Previous comments re:Beck were disparaging about him simply on the basis that he was Mormon-regardless of accurate facts.

That said, I didn't intend to hijack the thread.