All those people that were cheering the 'Arab Spring' should have realized that it is always followed by a scorching 'Arab Summer' and then into a long and dismal 'Arab nuclear winter'. Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it.
Just once I'd like to see the morons in office listen to the common sense that abounds all around them.
Gee, how about that? The Muslim Brotherhood going against every pledge they made to the world and to the Democrat party. Dems, you need to wake up and realize they played you for fools. Of course, what's new?
Obama played his party for fools, and the American people, and the rest of the non-Muslim world. He and his do nothing but fly around Secretary of State made it easy for the Muslim Brotherhood. It matters not what a Muslim says, truth means nothing to them. As a matter of fact, telling the truth is a sign of weakness. Just look at the Impostor in Chief occupying our White House. He'll say anything to anybody to advance his goals.
I assume you are saying Obama knew this was going to happen all along, and I agree. Sell it under the guise of a democracy he knew would never come to be. At least not more than one election.
I really liked his Syria comment. That has been my thinking all along. We still don't really know what the mystery rebels were in Libya. We know now about Egypt-- and it wasn't the "good" guys we helped. And with all the Christians leaving or have left Iraq, I'm still not convinced they are better off than under that corrupt secularist Saddam Hussien.
I really don't give a flip if they are better off than they were before. I do have the view that Saddam kept the radical elements of Islam at bay by being more brutal than they are....which didn't bother me a bit. Islam unleashed is a threat to the entire world so I don't care what attrocities they suffered under Saddam.
However, Saddam not only tried to get nuclear weapons but he tried taking over Middle Eastern oil. We would have a very unstable world if Saddam had that much leverage on everyone.
Saddam's WMD was the threat to forgo the US dollar as the coin of petro exchange and use the Euro with the European community (where he sold most of his oil). This would have really messed up the US T-bond market and the US debt by that forces all petro sales to be in dollars. The nuclear weapons stuff was all BS for public consumption.
Huh, I suppose it's possible. But if we get dropped as having the world's reserve currency we are screwed overnight and people won't know what a depression is until that happens. I suppose we could have gone to war over that, I dunno.
Saddam was working a deal with the Europeans so they would not need to have dollars to buy oil. He would take Euros. Then he would not need to convert the dollars to Euros to buy the stuff he wanted from the Europeans. For him and the Europeans it was win-win. The US couldn't let one of the oil producers get out of line. Who would be next? Libya - Europe? Malaysia - Japan? The way the system is set up now oil users have to figure out out how to get dollars (suck up to the US by selling us stuff cheap) the oil producers have to figure out what to do with their over abundance of dollars (invest in T-bills and buy US debt)
Ok, says you. Iraq supplies a small amount of the oil we use, so that seems like a long shot to me. There is a threat of the dollar being dropped as the world's reserve currency, but I don't see how you can place that on the shoulders of one man to make happen. OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the worlds' banks control that, not Saddam. Admittedly I don't know exactly how that plays out, but I don't believe Saddam could choose the currency of trade with OPEC and the banks.
Mr Bolton is a great patriot, has always been a straight shooter, speaks without fear of the truth. I'm sure we'll see alot more of Mr Bolton.
youtube: John Moore 7.25.12, should be interesting, 8-17-2012 is this Friday.
ursuadams.com The Science in videos.
God Bless You
Many of us have places of interest on the web that we'd like folks to see. The proper way to do that is by putting a link to your site in your Disqus profile, and let folks find it by clicking on your name here, next to your avatar.
Alternatively, you can bring it up for discussion in the open threads, provided it is a discussion, and not merely a spam effort.
But to avoid getting called on it, or having it flagged as spam, don't keep linking to the same place over and over in your comments on other subjects.
Budget restraint combined with real leadership in the DoD is a winning combination. John Bolton must be nominated as the next Secretary of Defense.
Okay with me- Let the twice-foolish Egyptians again lubricate the machinery of Muslim rule with Egyptian blood. It's pharaonic tradition, isn't it?
We need Bolton in the UN!!!! He's got to stop the agendas that this administration has been secretly putting in place. Then announce through Romney that the UN budget will be slashed to those programs that serve the US policies.
Then Romney needs to announce that Congressman Alan West will be over DoD!!!
Half the foreign policy issues get fixed with those two guys immediately!!!
I disagree with Bolton. Here's WHY
You're wasting your time JoP, The folks around here believe we already Greece and Ryan's plan somehow saves us when it balances the budget in 30 years. They don't seem to mind Ryan voting for S.679 which gives carte blanche to the President for appointments and removes Constitutional senate oversight as he "reapplies" the Constitution. They seem to think the best way to get a conservative in the WH is to elect a RINO in 2012. And they think they'll be able to keep the GOPe in line which in turn will keep Romney in line. I believe its called cognitive dissonance by the professionals.
So stop whining and get on board JoP. LOL!
While I do not agree with the bill, your characterization of it as this, " gives carte blanche to the President for appointments and removes Constitutional senate oversight..." , is at the very least disingenuous. A list of affected positions can be found here; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00679:@@@D&summ2=m&
I'll add this after Ken's comment:
In writing, I often use Rush's concept of there being no actual independents, because I meet so very few of us. But there are, scattered across the land, a small collection of genuine Independent Voters who watch what's going on carefully, and don't just wait till confronted with the ballot to start thinking about what to do. We tend to vote split tickets a lot, and we also take the time to look up info on those judicial candidates who supposedly aren't in any party.
When politicians and their "strategists" and consultants talk about independents, they don't mean us. Who they are really referring to is a chunk of voters who know little about parties or political philosophy, other than the fact that their Dad or some Grandparent was either a (D) or an (R). When they get to the ballot, they tend to vote for whoever they think their family would vote for (or if rebellious, against). They are sometimes swayed by the momentum of a candidate and any ads that they remember. I'm betting they end up voting for the same party over and over, regardless of what's going on, campaign-wise.
People like that are simply ignorant partisans, and you really can't pitch an ad or speech that will do much with that group. So "convincing the independents" is really nothing more than strong marketing that tries hard to lodge a notion in peoples' minds. It can all easily be undone by a simple gaffe, like "you didn't build that."
In my view there are no RINOs, they are simply the Republican Party, Conservatism is an entirely different beast. While there are the rare specimens that are both Republican and Conservative, most Conservatives that I have met are in reality political independents, they have either never registered as members of the GOP or if they were, they had left it long ago. I am one of those lifelong independents and proud of it, the bonus of being an independent is that you are never disappointed or let down by your party.
Now a President can to appoint Van Jones to more places and then there's gradualism and all that. I don't like it one bit. They used the same excuse as used for the 17th basically and we know how that turned out. Legal but still sucks.
I know I was a little over the top, pisses me off, its even Constitutional but it still sucks. Real conservatives voted against it.
And your point is? Did you bother to actually read my comment and the link I provided, in regards to your "carte blanche" assertion?
Yes I do remember him, I also remember how fast he was shown the door when he was outed for what he is. I also remember that his appointment was one that occurred before this bill was introduced, and if I recall his position was not one that required Senate approval in the first place. What the Van Jones incident shows us is what the press and media can do when they do their jobs.
Supporters of the Back-Door-to-Dictatorship bill, or “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011”, as it’s euphemistically listed in the U.S. Senate, tell us there’s nothing to fear.
Good article. I agree with the reasons for disregarding the others (Rubio et al), but then who should Romney have picked?