Saturday, June 25, 2011

"Whose side are you on?"

Team Obama has made many ridiculous and infuriating statements of late. So many to choose from to write about.

I could start with President Obama's joke in front of his Jobs and Competitiveness Council regarding his "shovel-ready" Stimulus: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected". Ha ha ha. Not funny. Not funny at all. People were depending on that for a recovery, and what they got was a predictable pork-spending boondoggle that only worsened our debt crisis. President Obama thinks that an aw-shucks chuckle will smooth that over.

I could comment on Michelle Obama's response in Africa about how she will handle the pressure of a campaign: "Fortunately, we have help from the media". Gee. No kidding. I could write paragraphs on how the media elite sold their journalistic soul for THE ONE in 2008. Nice to see some admission of that from the First Lady. By the way, who approved her trip to Africa again? Did we elect her to something? Does she not understand that WE ARE PAST THE DEBT CEILING? Someone please take the Queen's credit card away.

No, as infuriating as those stories are. The clear winner in the Clueless Statist verbal absurdities sweepstakes this week goes to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her question to the U.S. Congress regarding our misadventure in Libya:

She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"
Well, that answer is easy. Not yours, Madame Secretary. Please resign, instead of asking that arrogant and unsupportable question.

Here are just some of the reasons that Hillary's question is infuriating:

1. Hillary bears substantial blame for the Libya fiasco, having joined with her ideological sisters Samantha Power and Susan Rice in talking President Obama into the Libyan intervention while he was away for Spring Break in Rio.

2. The reasons for intervening to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Benghazi were specious, and do not hold up under examination. The administration claimed that "Gadhafi might have killed nearly 700,000 people" if no one acted, as he repelled a rebellion against his rule.

White House adviser Dennis Ross was only slightly less alarmist when he reportedly cited "the real or imminent possibility that up to a 100,000 people could be massacred."...But these are outlandish scenarios that go beyond any reasonable interpretation of Gadhafi's words.
Read the article for further discussion on that point.

3. The Libyan invasion that Hillary / Team Obama blundered us into has substantially undermined NATO's existence. I remember when NATO was a viable deterrent to the very real threat of the Soviet Union - back in the days of the Cold War when I was in the military. What now, in the era after the collapse of the USSR?

Did I miss something here?

Was there an earthquake that separated Libya from Africa and floated it into the North Atlantic - where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might have some legal authority?

Was a NATO member country attacked by Libya, triggering the defense pact?

No. Then what the hell are we/NATO doing intervening in Libya on behalf of the suspect intentions of European oil consumers and suspect UN motives?

As we have expanded outside of the stated mission to protect Benghazi and are now in an overt effort to kill a foreign leader, and as we have stalemated and are not clearly able to do that suspect task, you have irrepairably damaged the viability of NATO. For what?

4. Speaking of the UN: How dare the US commander-in-chief commit US military troops to harms way in the service of the United Nations and without getting approval from the U.S. Congress. We are not obligated by the United Nations Responsibility to Protect (R2P) program, as President Obama has cited. What an outrage to have our President seek UN approval for US military actions, only to stiff arm the duly elected representatives of the people in the Congress. Outrageous!

President Obama is now clearly in violation of the War Powers Act - which is the law of the land enacted constitutionally by Congress over a President's veto - by having troops committed to "kinetic military actions" (again, as Team Obama laughably called them) in excess of 90 days without Congressional approval. You might think that President Bush 43 was wrong to go to war in Iraq, but he at least respected the country enough to get a vote of approval from Congress before doing so.

Are you not offended by the absurd argument that Team Obama proffered to Congress as a rationale for violating the law. They are not in violation, they argued, because we are not currently engaged in "hostilities" as defined in the Act. Bullshit. We are firing missiles into a sovereign country in an effort to kill their leader! We have troops in the theater that are collecting "imminent danger pay" in Obama's not-a-war war. Is there more outrageously fallacious argument for our President to disrepect Congress - and us - with?

Obama's actions in violating the law are those of a dictator and not an elected President of the United States. Thus, I am referring to him in this period of time as "King Obama". Articles of impeachment are clearly in order.

5. The most compelling reason, Madame Secretary, that I am not on your side is:

You blundered us into a war ON THE SIDE OF AL-QAIDA!

You might have wanted to check out the "rebels" that we were assisting with NATO firepower instead of rushing ahead to get some cred on the "Arab Spring" question. It seems to have escaped your notice AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that the "rebels" in Eastern Libya have more in common with the murderous barbarians that we are fighting in hot wars throughout the mideast than with Western democracies. An inconvenient fact that you might want to have considered before you put our military on the line.

Barbarians. We are allied with barbarians. Beheading jihadist barbarians. Watch this appalling video of "rebels" beheading a Libyan soldier, if you have the courage of your convictions:


While I don't know who is behind that video, or their agenda, it tells the tale that we are allied with barbarians in Obama's Libyan war.

Mrs. Clinton, hear me. Regarding your arrogant question to our representatives in Congress "Whose side are you on" - I am not on your side.

Resign now. Take Samantha Power and Susan Rice with you. Apologize in your resignation for your illegal war.

And do it before we proceed with impeaching King Obama for his wanton violation of the law. The House has voted "NO" on Obama's Libya war, and must now proceed to impeachment.


  1. Well, Randy, I don't expect I agree with you on much, but you hit the nail on the head with this one.