Progress is desirable and possible, but not on the basis of pseudo-scientific theoretical novelties and fads which are in many cases merely alibis for moral responsibility and moral training. Science is a mighty weapon, a glittering sword in the hand of civilization. But if civilization permits science to rob it of its moral foundations it will be a case of suicide by falling on its own sword.
The fluidity and resultant poor positioning of the Democrats whenever it comes to any action or inaction of President is Trump is largely – nigh on completely in point of sad fact – is that neither the Democrats nor their constituencies of Liberals and Progressives have any ethical or moral position as a foundation for their beliefs.
All they possess is a pathological inability to tolerate not getting their way exactly when and how they want it and at no cost to themselves in blood, sweat, or treasure.
Liberals and Progressives, especially the woefully mis-raised Millennials, are always going to be offended. This is because their feelings of offense are nigh on completely fluid and not based upon any sort of actual actions.
Part me actually wants to excuse this behavior because they’re mentally impaired. Mostly, however, I think that they, like all the dangerously insane, should be kept in some form of strict quarantine where they can be treated for their illness.
Obama, America’s lamentable Jester-in-Chief is at it again. This time the dangerous fool is once again trying to sell Congress, America, and the world’s governments on his plan to launch a punitive strike against Al-Assad’s government in Syria.Â As usual, his arguments in favor of his chosen course of action are better suited to a fool, cavorting for the entertainment of his masters than to anyone who is allowed to be in a position of authority.
First there is the boy’s attempt to clothe his desires in the Color of Law:
Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.
What the mendacious fool fails to mention is that Syria is not signatory to that treaty. In point of fact, Syria is not even signatory to the Geneva Convention, having withdrawn from it some 20 years ago. Hence the only way that any “basic rules were violated” is if we accept the postulate that treaties voluntarily entered into by one set of nations can be enforced upon other sovereign nations that did not agree to be bound by them.
Also, insofar as I know, bombs, missiles, rockets, and artillery shells, and such other remotely delivered ordinance also fail to make distinction between soldier and infant. The Gods know that Obama’s drone war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen has torn plenty of children into smoking gobbets of meat.
Obama’s distinction between the forms of weaponry is the rankest of sophistry and, in the boy’s case, also the rankest of hypocrisy. It’s just more of his capering, shucking, and jiving.
Then there’s the fool’s attempt to make this a matter of America’s current and future national security:
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
This statement is much akin to jester’s prank that fails to amuse. It engenders nothing but contempt with the sheer volume of error crammed into so few words.
Let us first put aside those logical flaws or deliberate misdirections that are inherent in this particular passage of Obama’s jabbering:
Let us ignore the informal fallacy of the slippery slope argument this argument is predicated upon.
Let us also ignore the fact that punishment does not equate to deterrence and has consistently failed in the Muslim World.
Instead, let us concentrate on the truly dangerous underlying foolishness of Obama’s who agenda regarding the Syrian Civil War. Al-Assad’s government has stockpiles of chemical – and, likely biological – weapons and has had them for decades. Not once has the Syrian government used them on foreign soil or troops and not once have they been turned over to proxies for use by various Muslim terrorist groups. Yet Obama has chosen to side with the rebels, mostly Islamists and filled with member of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.
The one singularly dangerous act of foolishness committed by Obama is his not backing Assad. Nothing will make it easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians than the overthrow of the current Syrian government by this Islamist rebels.
And Obama glibly proclaimed that he won’t do anything about it:
First, many of you have asked, wonâ€™t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are â€œstill recovering from our involvement in Iraq.â€ A veteran put it more bluntly: â€œThis nation is sick and tired of war.â€
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assadâ€™s capabilities.
Every single step Obama takes towards ending Assad’s reign is step closer to releasing stockpiles of WMDs upon the world. If Obama is, for political reasons, unwilling to put American boots on the ground in Syria he is also unwilling to prevent this from happening.
At best the boy is hoping that the situation will drag out long enough for him to safely the leave office before Assad falls. That way resulting catastrophe won’t be on his watch.
America and the world’s problem is that Obama is a dangerous and dangerously weak fool, much better suited to cavorting and capering for the entertainment of his masters than being in any position of authority. Like all such fools, when wrongly placed in authority, he can, has, and will cause great harm.
It’s pretty easy to sum up Obama’s position on any form of dissent against what he wants. It’s even easier to sum up his and his cultists’ specific response to anyone that dares to defy his wish to attack Syria.
It’s Not My Fault And You’re All Racists!
It’s said that, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It should also be said that, when your The First Black President, everything is a White man’s fault and everyone that disagrees with you is racist. 😛
I doubt, however, that if the boy once again gets his way that his Syrian adventure will plunge the world into WWIII. Putin doesn’t have enough respect for Obama to bother with that.
So, in a move that was unexpected and shocking to many, Obama has decided to not take any military action against Bashar Hafez al-Assad’s Syrian government without first seeking approval from Congress. Some claim this is a historic moment in modern US history.
President Barack Obama, according to background briefings by his aides, reached a fateful decision late Friday afternoon as he strolled along the White House lawn with his chief of staff Denis McDonough. Contrary to every expectation by his national security team, Obama concluded that he should ask Congress for authorization to bomb Syria.
The full reasoning behind the presidentâ€™s turnabout remains murky. He may have wanted to share responsibility for a risky strategy to punish the barbarous regime of Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Obama may have recognized the political dangers of attacking another Middle Eastern country without popular support at home.
And the president, a former part-time constitutional law professor, may have also belatedly recalled the wording of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that grants Congress the sole power â€œto declare war.â€
But whatever Obamaâ€™s underlying motivations and however the Syrian vote plays out on Capitol Hill, the presidentâ€™s decision to go to Congress represents an historic turning point. It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek their backing to launch the Korean war.
I have to disagree with this optimistic interpretation of the events. Yes, it’s true that Obama’s decision to seek Congress’ permission to use military force in a foreign adventure is step backwards from the “imperial presidency” that has become more and more common since the latter half of the 20th century. It would certainly be historic if Obama had first sought Congressional permission before waging a foreign war. He didn’t though.
The boy first sought authorization from foreign powers. They, however, rejected him. It was only after Obama realized that he had no treaty obligations to twist and fold into a paper diaper to cover his ass that he decided to abide by the US Constitution and seek our Congress’ permission to take action against the government of Syria and further involve America in their civil war.
That’s hardly a rollback of unlawfully assumed Presidential powers. That’s just Obama being afraid of impeachment and/or assassination.
Perhaps it is historic in the sense that it’s a historic setback for a US President to seek foreign approval and allies in a punitive military strike against a group that used WMDs against anyone, especially its own populace and utterly fail to receive it. That’s the only way, however, I can really see this as a historic moment in American politics.
Then again, perhaps it is also a historic moment in the sense that now a sitting POTUS has used the horrific deaths of civilian men, women, and children as a campaign mechanism for a political party and personal aggrandizement. More so, it might be historic that many will not find this objectionable, disgusting, and firm grounds for reprisal.
If, however, this is the course of history, it does not bode well for the future.