White House Ineptness is Showing

“U.S. Chides Syria on Missed Chemical Arms Deadlines”, —New York Times, January 30, 2014

Say goodbye to the big stick. Say hello to the big chide.

Five months ago, you will recall, President Obama was preparing to launch military strikes against Bashar al-Assad. The strikes were averted when the Russians, seizing on a gaffe by Secretary of State John Kerry, proposed a deal in which Assad would give up his WMD if the United States did not bomb.

How are things working out? Well, who could have predicted it, but this week we learned that Assad has retained 95 percent of his WMD stockpile while continuing to miss the deadlines to hand over his weapons. More than 125,000 Syrians are dead, millions more are displaced, and al Qaeda affiliates claim jurisdiction over much of the country.

The conflict has drawn thousands of foreign fighters from 50 countries into Syria, foreign fighters who have every intention of bringing the jihad back home when they return to Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. The Syrian chaos has spilled over into Lebanon and into Iraq, where ethno-sectarian conflict has resumed and al Qaeda has reappeared.

But do not worry. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is on the case. “The United States is concerned that the Syrian government is behind in delivering these chemical weapons and precursor materials on time, and with the schedule that was agreed to,” he said in a statement from Poland. And if that is not enough to get Assad back on schedule, the State Department made the hilarious claim that the military option remains “on the table.” read more

Delta Force was in Tripoli That Fateful Night

Masked from public view, two of the U.S. military’s elite special operations commandos have been awarded medals for bravery for a mission that further undercuts the Obama administration’s original story about the Benghazi tragedy.

For months, administration officials have claimed no special operations forces were dispatched from outside Libya to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012, al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex because none was within range. read more

Tired of Syria – Tired of the Middle East

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Show of hands – who is sick of talking or hearing about Syria?


I like knowing geography as much as the next guy, but frankly I’m tired of learning the cities and provinces of every Middle Eastern country.


Did anyone know much of anything about the Kurds before the whole Iraq thing? Could anyone have guessed the name of any province in Afghanistan or that Benghazi is a city not some guy?


I bet, for those of us that follow this stuff, we could name more cities in Syria than in Montana. No joke!


Growing up, did you ever figure you would know as much as you do about Sunnis, Shiites or Bathists? Heck, had you ever heard of  them or think those terms had any importance at all?


Clearly you wouldn’t unless you are CIA, an ambassador or some sort of Middle East envoy.


I could have lived my life happily not knowing where Aleppo is or the genealogy of the Assad family.


Frankly, I’m tired of hearing, seeing, talking and writing about the Middle East. I’m tired of talking about terrorism. I no more Arabic then I do Spanish. Not that I want to learn Spanish – I don’t – but I sure didn’t want to learn Arabic.


Did you ever figure you’d know the term Allahu Akbar, or care?


Now everyone knows it – well, except John McCain, who claims it is a harmless term and equates it to a Christian saying praise God. What an idiot. What colossal jewel of ignorance. What were the people of Arizona thinking – keeping that old fool around for another term.


Ah, and then there is the Muslim Brotherhood. If you didn’t know better, you’d think it was a Moose Lodge or something. But thanks to brother Barack, we all know about the Muslim Brotherhood. I guess not all thanks goes to Obama. George Bush was in bed with the Brotherhood also. More loosely, but he still supported them. He too bought into the “Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate” nonsense, thanks to dirtbags like Grover Norquist.


Again, I could’ve slept every night peacefully not knowing a thing of the Brotherhood. Now, in a few short years we are all armchair experts. We know their plans to take over the Middle East. We are knowledgeable regarding the Caliphate. Caliphate – until a few years ago someone could’ve told me it was an ointment. Just rub some caliphate on that scratch and put a Band-Aid on it.


I guess the point of this diatribe is to show how much time and effort we have collectively wasted on the geographic wasteland that is the Middle East and North Africa.


What better, more constructive things could we have been doing and discussing?


Honestly, if it weren’t for their oil, we would know virtually nothing of the Middle East, or care.


But people are being gassed; people are being slaughtered in Syria. Don’t you care, you may ask? Of course I care, but people are being slaughtered by dictators everywhere. How is this different? It’s really not, except that it sucks all the air out of the press room, so to speak. It sure does deflect and wipe away all the scandals and administration’s dirty underhanded dealings, doesn’t it. No IRS scandal, NSA, Benghazi, no talk of amnesty, even though it’s being expanded as we speak, but no one is reporting it. Convenient, eh?


So as long as Americans are thrust into Middle Eastern conflicts, I will continue to issue my two cents, although I’m growing weary of having to learn anymore about their geography, people or language. After Syria – who’s next?


What’s the capital of Lebanon? Just asking.

Johnny Gets an Earfull

Senator John McCain conducted a townhall meeting in Phoenix last night and probably wishes he had stayed in Washington.



 Sen. John McCain, whose endorsement of President Barack Obama’s plan to launch military strikes against Syria provided the president a key Republican backer, faced vocal opponents of military action during a town hall in Arizona Thursday.

McCain has long advocated a more muscular American approach toward Syria, calling for a plan to oust President Bashar al-Assad from power. But on Thursday many people who showed up to a town hall in Phoenix said that getting more involved in the civil war would lead to unintended consequences.

“We didn’t send you to make war for us. We sent you to stop the war,” one man said to applause.

Another man, holding a bag of marshmallows, declared Congress was going soft on its duties to represent voters.

Conitnue Reading

Democrats: Hawks or Hypocrites?

by: the Common Constitutionalist


The “Hawks” have aligned and are ready for war. All the administration heavy hitters have come out swinging. Throughout the halls of the White House and Congress there is a “Call to Action”.


Isn’t it great that progressives always want “action”, although it must be the correct action, as defined by them and must be action by those approved to act, also defined by them.


Yet less than a decade ago the Bush administration was warning us of Syria’s Assad. Strangely though, there was no “Call to Action”. The exact opposite, in fact.


Many of the same “Hawks” of today were “doves” not too long ago.


In 2005 then Senator Barack Milhouse Obama grilled ambassador John Bolton regarding Syria. Bolton was trying to warn us of Syria’s progress in developing WMD and that they would pose a threat to the Middle East region and beyond. read more

Warmonger Maureen Dowd

by: the Common Constitutionalist


On Monday the Washington sage Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in, where else, the New York Times entitled, “Shadow of a Doubt“. It was regarding the potential strike on Syria and how, in her opinion, things in Washington seem to be completely upside down.


She expressed it as a “bewildering time here”. She did make a couple of good points although mostly and typically it was trashing all Republicans and those on the right.


She described Nancy Pelosi as “the hawk urging military action”. She does have a good point. When was the last time Pelosi urged action against anyone other than conservatives and the Tea Party?


She described the Republicans as “squeamish about launching an attack” and “top generals going pacifist”. Although she makes no distinction, I will. Republicans are squeamish about virtually everything. They’re afraid of their shadows or at least the shadows of Democrats (and illegal aliens). Conservatives on the other hand are not squeamish. They/we just require the facts before taking action, the real facts.


Dowd characterized former ambassador John Bolton as a “dove who doesn’t think we should take sides” who wishes for more intelligence.


I always knew John Bolton was a smart man. We shouldn’t take sides in a civil war that we have no interest in nor threat from. And as far as intelligence goes; there’s been plenty showing that Assad did not initiate the chemical attack. That it was in fact the “rebels” (terrorists) that released the chemicals. Possibly what they call “kitchen sarin” gas. I wrote about this just yesterday. Feel free to review the article.



Of course Maureen makes no mention of the fact that the terrorists may be setting up the dictator Assad. That’s assuming she’s even heard the contradictory facts. After all, most of these elitist liberal columnists live and work in a bubble, speak to and read only those of like mind. How would she know?


She explained, “many around the president are making the case that if he doesn’t stand firm on his line in the sand… he’ll look weak and America will lose face and embolden its foes.”


Well Maureen, it’s a bit late for that. His foes, along with the rest of us, already see him as weak due to the fact that he is. Terrorists, regardless of affiliation know full well how to “play” the West to achieve their ends. Whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or a subsidiary group, they understand how to move liberal Westerners to action.


She then goes on a typical tirade comparing Bush and Iraq to Syria. The whole “Bush lied and people died” nonsense. Years later and Bush derangement syndrome still lives.


She described how John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as senators both voted to invade Iraq and then came to regret it. She neglected to remind us that many liberals originally rejected the notion of Iraq invasion. Yet when public opinion turned against them they didn’t want to appear weak so they asked for a do over and then voted for it. Way to stick to your guns!


She explained how Democrat hack Robert Menendez of New Jersey “opposed the Iraq invasion but supports a Syrian smackdown”. Funny how that works. It just goes to show that everything is political with these people.


Dowd quoted Menendez asking Lurch (John Kerry) if the administration would accept a “prohibition for having boots on the ground”. It seemed a rather obvious attempt at coaching. Lurch explained that “it would not be preferable” but could not rule it out.


She reported that Kerry said if WMD “fell into the hands of Al Nusra or someone else” ground troops might have to be deployed.


Well, from the evidence coming in, it appears they already have some form of chemical weapons.


Dowd closes in typical liberal fashion stating, “It’s up to president Obama to show Americans that he knows what he’s doing, unlike his predecessor”.


As most are well aware, I am no fan of George W. Bush but it’s been painfully obvious for years that Obama, his advisers and cabinet are utterly clueless. We cannot afford a buffoon like him leading us into armed conflict, although regardless of the outcome it will be reported by Dowd as a smashing success for Old Blood and Guts Barack.

Obama: The Muslims Best Friend

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Yesterday The Blaze reported:


“Al Jazeera’s blog posted a story Monday featuring tweets from the Director of Research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar, who reported that an Egyptian newspaper’s front page story claimed President Barack Obama is a member of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.”


I for one believe it. Why? Because Hillary Clinton said so. “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” Clinton said. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock…”


The report continued:


“And if that weren’t enough, the newspaper also claims that President Obama’s half-brother Malik is allegedly an Al Qaeda activist.  It further alleges that the son of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shater had threatened to expose a document revealing the secret membership.”


Experts say that the Egyptian populace is just acting out their frustration at the impression that the Obama administration is pro-Muslim Brotherhood.


Frustration or not, in my opinion he is indeed pro-Brotherhood. That appears rather obvious. Whether he is a member or not is immaterial. I strongly support many conservative groups efforts but I am not a member of them all. What’s the diff? (a little hipster lingo).


Is this the reason Obama is so fired up about attacking Syria and deposing Assad? As many have stated, myself included; Assad is a bad dude. So was Mubarak in Egypt and Gadhafi in Libya. But the region was at least relatively stable under these evil dictators. That was the evil we knew.


We now see a far worse and much more unpredictable evil.


Yet in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, McCain, Graham and a host of others insist we must attack Syria, for Assad clearly used chemical weapons, thus crossing the “red line”.


Yet Syrian “rebels” (al-Qaeda) admitted to an AP reporter that they, not Assad were responsible for the most recent release of chemical weapons. They also admitted blaming it on Assad. Have you heard anyone in the administration echo these findings, or even say they will look into it? Of course not. It doesn’t fit their template. They’ve boxed themselves into a corner with all their “tough talk”. Rather than take a step back with the release of this information, it’s full speed ahead. Playing right into the hands of the radical Islamic groups that seek to fill the void in Syria as they are attempting to do in so many other Middle Eastern countries.


There are increasing numbers of intelligence reports suggesting this. Among these is a claim by Saleh Muslim, head of an opposition party in Syria and no friend of Assad. He believes the chemical attacked was staged. It’s aim was to frame Assad and provoke and international response.


Will we ever learn? This whole mess sounds like a Serb/Bosnian redo. Remember the “ethnic cleansing” of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the ‘90’s? The Serbs were apparently wiping out the poor Bosnian Muslims. There was international outrage, which convinced president Clinton and a host of other dupes to “save the Muslims” from certain annihilation by waging war against the Serbs. That was lie as is the Syria situation.


It was the exact opposite. It was the Muslims who were cleansing Bosnia of the non-Muslim Serbs. Alija Izetbegovic, a leader of the Bosnian Muslims, perpetrated this lie.


Like all radical Islamists, he preached the creed of “Islamic Order”. He wrote: “…the Islamic Order, which is to say the union of religion and politics…has…consequences of a primordial practical importance, of which the first is the impossibility of confusing the Islamic Order with the non-Islamic systems. It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between ‘the Islamic Religion’ and non-Islamic social and political institutionsthe Islamic movement may, or rather should, begin by seizing power as soon as it possesses a good measure of moral and numerical strength, allowing it not only to overthrow the non-Islamic power, but also to establish the new Islamic power.”


Once again our leaders are being played for the fools they are, although I don’t know if Obama is a fool, a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer or all of the above. I do think we’re going to war…again.

Syria: Should We or Shouldn’t We: American Neutrality is Not Isolationism

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Syria is neither a friend nor ally. The conflict in Syria is a civil war, an internal struggle, not a war of international aggression or imperial colonization. Yet those of the “we must do something” crowd are insistent of our entanglement and brand all others as “Isolationists”.


Once again, our governmental brain trust would be well served to consult our own history. More often than not, the answer can be found.


As The Heritage Foundation asserts, it is helpful to define what is meant by “isolationist.” The term isolationism applies to a policy of abstaining from economic and political relations with other countries. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea.


Let’s not confuse or commingle military abstinence with economic and political isolationism.


During an Independence Day speech, John Quincy Adams fervently argued that America had no inherent responsibility to intervene abroad (emphasis added):

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”


Policies set forth by the founders were born of affection for republican self-government and their desire to preserve the country’s sovereign independence.


Washington advocated for a foreign policy that would allow America to, “choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”


During Thomas Jefferson’s Administration, the United States, acting in our interest chose war, joining forces with Sweden and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies during the Tripolitan War against the Barbary Pirates. Such foreign military cooperation was essential in defeating the Muslim privateers (terrorists), loosely associated with the Ottoman Empire (surprise; present day Iran). It was the new nations first foreign war.


From the beginning, the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy has been to defend the American constitutional system and the interests of the American people.


Jefferson summed it up in his First Inaugural Address as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”


And thus was a difficult decision to be made by our first president. The rebellion during the French revolution solicited Americas help as a military and political ally. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had been George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the American Revolution and had become a close personal friend, had personally requested the assistance of Washington and the Americans. Yet Washington knew that supporting France would likely drag America into a disastrous war against her will.


So in April, 1793, George Washington signed a proclamation declaring America’s neutrality, although the word neutrality is found nowhere in the declaration. In short Washington, like Jefferson feared an entangled alliance. He also did not wish to involve America in another nations internal struggle.


In 1822, President Monroe officially recognized the independence of Argentina, Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The United States was the first established nation to welcome these new republics into the community of nations. Thus was the Monroe Doctrine.


President Monroe stated of the Monroe Doctrine, “The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”


The Monroe Doctrine would hardly be considered isolationist and it was the last major declaration blessed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Must have been nice and quite convenient to be able to seek direct council from the Authors of the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. How cool is that?!


With the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. attempted to ban imperial ambition from one-third of the globe’s surface, thereby delegitimizing the accepted system of imperialism and attempting to fundamentally alter the international order – hardly an isolationist policy.


So how does all this “history” equate or relate to the upheaval in the Middle East? What would the founders have advised us to do?


That’s easy; stay out of it. We had our chances long ago to support freedom and liberty and we sat back and did nothing. Now all these uprisings have been high jacked by one terrorist group or another. There are no good guys, no freedom or liberty to support.


This is also an internal struggle. If Washington was able to say no his dear friend, The Marquis de Lafayette, during France’s bloody revolution, we sure as heck can say no to Syria, who are neither friend nor ally.

The United States – Caliphate Enabler

by: the Common Constitutionalist


“We have to do something!” regarding Syria. That’s the clarion call of both the right and left. It’s actually the call of the progressives for I hear few if any constitutional conservatives calling for action.


It’s like saying we have to do something to put out a wildfire and then throwing gasoline on it. That’s doing something, is it not?


Yet virtually every politician and pundit I see or hear insists we have to help. We can’t just stand by and do nothing. Assad has clearly crossed the “red line” with chemical weapon attacks and must be dealt with.


However, I personally have seen or heard no evidence that Assad is the one ordering the chemical attacks. Everyone is just assuming it must be his regime. It most likely is but if the Al Qaeda “rebels” had them, they would surely use them and blame Assad knowing the West would fall right in line. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that Al Qaeda were the ones firing on the UN inspectors.


As an aside: I wonder where Assad got his WMDs? If you recall, during the run-up to the Iraq war, there were reports of Russian convoys leaving Iraq headed for Syria/Lebanon. Reports were that the trucks were loaded with WMDs and were eventually hidden in the Bakaa Valley, Lebanon that borders Syria. Could these be the weapons that Assad used? Just something to ponder.


Meanwhile, many in our government and the media are beating the drums of war – or at least a hefty American response, for progressives believe we are indeed the world’s police force.


Just as they think we can continue to spend money we don’t have domestically, they give no thought to involving us in every international conflict.


The American people aren’t as keen to involve the U.S. as say John McCain or Lindsey Graham. According to a Reuters poll, 60% of Americans polled want nothing to do with the attack on Syria, or any involvement whatsoever. 9% were in favor. I’m no fan of Reuters but I tend to believe this.


One poll respondent, a former military officer said: “the United States has become too much of the world’s policemen and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours.”


Monday afternoon Sean Hannity weighed in on the subject. He said it would be like sitting back and watching thugs mug an old lady. He asked, “Would you just do nothing?”


I gotta tell ya. Hannity has all but lost me. It’s bad enough that he gives the likes of Karl Rove a platform on his show, but equating a mugging to this is a specious argument. One has nothing to do with the other.


When we get involved in these conflicts it inevitably ends up worse. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. They are all now or will be worse off than before we “did something”.


Is this what Ben Franklin meant when he stated: “Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later.” Or John Adams prescient statement of the arrogance of power: “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.”


Will we ever learn through conflict after conflict to just butt out?


I feel for the innocents in all the Middle East. Their lives revolve around one tragedy after another. But we as a nation must adhere to the Constitution. That document is, as were the founders, very specific about matters of war.


George Washington adamantly stated: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”


If something is to be done, let Congress deliberate and authorize it, not President Cruise Missile.


As evil a human being as Assad is, just like Egypt and Libya, if he falls things will be much worse.


After that – watch for Iraq and Lebanon – they’re next.


Caliphate anyone?