As I wrote about in this post when Barack Obama made the announcement that he would seek authorization from the Congress before taking military action is Syria, I find it interesting that the president made a point to tell the American people he could do this on his own without Congressional approval even as he sought that approval.
The reason he gave for seeking Congressional approval he does not believe he needs is this: the American people deserve a debate on this issue. But still, I find the fact he made a point to mention he didn’t need the approval strange because it implies that he might just go ahead with the attack if the Congress does not authorize it. Here is what I wrote in the post linked to above: I find it interesting that he felt the need to state he could attack Syria on his own, does that mean his decision has already been made and he will attack Syria even if the Congress does not approve?
In that post I also stated that I did not believe Barack Obama would act on his own after the Congress denied him the authority, but I might just be wrong about this. I may have underestimated Barack Obama’s megalomania.
Obamacare: 40,000 Longshoremen quit the AFL-CIO
Due in part to Obamacare and to immigration reform 40,000 Longshoreman have announced they are splitting with the AFL-CIO:
In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the disillusion of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the AFL-CIO’s support of Obamare.
“We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along,” McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.
Of course the union was “going along to get along” with the Democrats’ Obamacare plan, unions have been in bed with the Democrats for years–it is what they do. However, it is hard to feel bad for these 40,000 members because, whether they care to admit it or not, they were also willingly “going along to get along” when they thought their healthcare plans were going to be exempted from Obamacare.
Open thread for Sunday, September 1st: Ain’t No Rest for the Wicked
Here is the open thread for Sunday, September 1st; please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
As usual you can follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. I often post links to articles I probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is going on in the world. You can also subscribe to receive email updates and if you do you will never miss a post again.
Please check out what the New Federalist Party has been up to by clicking on the link to the right. On the NFP Facebook page you will find a link to the party platform. Check it out and if you like what you see we are currently looking for donations and delegates to the states for the convention.
It was two or three weeks ago when I wrote that I needed a break of one or two days because I was getting worn out. I still haven’t gotten to take that break because there ain’t no rest for the wicked and Barack Obama has provided us with plenty to write about. So here is ‘Cage the Elephant’ performing ‘Ain’t No Rest for the Wicked.’
No I can’t slow down
I can’t hold back
Though you know I wish I could
No there ain’t no rest for the wicked
Until we close our eyes for good
I am of the belief that there is always an ulterior motive behind everything that Barack Obama says and does: I believe this is the case with his announcement today that he would seek Congressional approval before attacking Syria, and I believe there is an ulterior motive behind his decision to attack Syria in the first place.
So what could possibly Barack Obama’s real motive behind attacking Syria? (If we put aside the possibility that he secretly supports al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.)
Two days ago it was reported that the Pentagon could not afford to fight Syria and would need to have additional funds raised, and then today this story appeared on ‘The Hill’ which states that some see Barack Obama gaining an advantage by this action in the upcoming budget debate:
U.S. military action in Syria could give the White House an advantage in the looming fiscal showdown with congressional Republicans, according to defense and budget experts.
They said the Syria crisis could boost calls by President Obama and defense hawks to reverse the automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon known as sequestration.
Steve Bell, a budget expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said if the U.S. moves forward with military action, it will underline the arguments of those who say keeping the sequester in place impairs U.S. military readiness.
Wouldn’t that be all too convenient for the Dear Leader? Could it actually be the case that Barack Obama is using the threat of war against Syria in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming sequester debate? Is he using the threat of war to push his political spending agenda because he feels it will force the hand of the Republicans into reversing the sequester cuts?
I certainly do not put this passed him, do you?
Today, in a speech given from the Rose Garden, Barack Obama announced that while he has the authority to act on the Syrian situation on his own that he would seek Congressional approval. This, of course, was the right decision to make and I would still argue that because the United States does not face an imminent threat from Syria that the president is wrong in suggesting he does not need congressional approval.
While this was the right decision I question his motivation behind it. It will come as no surprise to regular readers of America’s Watchtower that I do not trust this man; I always feel as if he has an ulterior motive. So what is it here, or am I just over-thinking things?
18 Democrats sign petition telling Barack Obama he needs Congressional approval to attack Syria
Newly minted warmongers Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelsosi have seemingly joined forces with old school warmongers such as John McCain in urging an attack on Syria over now disputed claims that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. They no longer seem to feel as if the United States has to pass a global test or get United Nations approval before acting on this whim, this is a stunning reversal of position after their demagoguery over the last decade or so.
I happen to agree with the notion that as a sovereign nation the United States does not need to seek United Nations approval, nor do we have to pass a global test to protect our own interests on the world stage, but there is one test that the president must pass before authorizing an attack; he must pass the Congressional test. It is just interesting to me that so many Democrats seem to have come around to my way of thinking simply because the president just happens to be a Democrat.
British Parliament votes against intervening in Syria as Barack Obama prepares to go in alone
Do you remember when Democrats, such as John Kerry, promised they would make sure the United States passed a “global test” before committing United States troops to military action in sovereign nations? I do.
Apparently now that Barack Obama is president that “global test” has been thrown out the window and is no longer a requirement. The British government did something the United States government doesn’t feel necessary to do when the Parliament was called back into session to debate the bombing of Syria when it is becoming less clear if Bashar Assad actually was the one who used the chemical weapons.
Why is John Boehner silent on Syria? A Congressman asks John Boehner to call an emergency session
John Boehner’s silence on Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria without Congressional approval is deafening. In fact I would say that by his silence he is in effect supporting the president’s proposal.
One Congressman, Scott Rigell of Virginia, is not happy and has asked John Boener to reconvene the House to debate this issue.
He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”
“I do have a call scheduled with one of our senior leaders this afternoon and I will be making that case,” said Rigell. “I think we’re at this point, and I regret that we’re at this point. But that is where we are Read more…
The Syrian rebels are being trained by the terrorists who carried out the Benghazi attack
It is now being reported, in this article, that the Syrian rebels–the same rebels Barack Obama is preparing to defend against Bashar Assad–are actually being trained in terrorist camps by Ansar al-Sharia.
If that name rings a bell in your head, it should. But in case it doesn’t, Ansar al-Sharia is the terrorist organization which is responsible for carrying out the attack in Benghazi which left Chris Stevens, (after being raped and sodomized), Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods dead.
Are we headed towards WWIII? Part 2
All of this talk about Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people last week sounded eerily familiar to me–it seemed like we have heard this before. And the reason why it sounded familiar to me is because it was just over a month ago when we heard a similar report about Bashar Assad.
Back in July it was reported that he used chemical weapons on his own people and it was also reported that as part of Barack Obama’s response the United States would support the rebels (al-Qaeda) by supplying them with weapons. (In reality, Barack Obama was already covertly supplying the rebels in Syria by running guns captured in Libya though the consulate in Benghazi which led to the deaths of Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods.)
When this story broke on July 16th of this year I wrote a post entitled ‘Are we headed towards WWIII‘, and now I think it is time to revisit this possibility.
America's Watchtower 