Obama’s “Red Line” Replaced by White Flag!

By John W. Lillpop

As everyone knows, Barack Obama is NOT a courageous man who is committed to defending the American people and the American republic.

His disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution has caused Obama to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors, which could ultimately lead to his removal from office.

Obama’s most recent act of defiance against the Constitution appeared to be his threat to take unilateral action against Syria, with out approval from the US Congress or the United Nations.

Thus, the stage was set for an epic battle between the rule of law and our Outlaw president who claims to be a Constitutional scholar, but whom acts as though the Constitution is his personal toy, a powerful tool that can be interpreted, and or ignored, at his behest and whim to conform to his leftist political agenda-- without the need to consult or heed Congress.

However, Obama’s egregious plans took a major hit when he lost the support of Great Britain, America’s most reliable ally.

Finally, The One came to realize that he is NOT all knowing, not omnipotent, and NOT always right.

Thus, the famous Red Line was replaced by a White Flag to formalize Obama’s latest foible as documented in the reference:

President Barack Obama said Saturday he is prepared to take military action if necessary against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people, but said he will seek authorization from Congress before moving forward.


This menace must be confronted," Mr. Obama vowed in an address from the White House Rose Garden, arguing for using force to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Not acting, he said, "risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

"I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I am asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation," Mr. Obama said.

The president has faced criticism on the political left and right, with some lawmakers arguing against a military response and others demanding more information about any U.S. mission in advance of a presidential order. House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), in particular, had pushed Mr. Obama to consult with Congress about his plans for military action.

Mr. Obama said he's talked with leaders in Congress and they've agreed to schedule a debate on using force as soon as they return from their August recess on Sept. 9, though lawmakers could be called back earlier.

The president said the effectiveness of any U.S. military strike, which he vowed would be limited, is "not time sensitive."

"It could be effective tomorrow, or next week or one month from now," Mr. Obama said. He said he is aware that the United Nations and some countries may not agree with his decision. He said he's prepared to go forward without their approval.

Not acting, he said, could lead to an escalation of chemical-weapons use and embolden countries that are seeking to build nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama's comments follow a week of high tensions about whether the U.S. would strike Syria. And it comes after the administration made a public argument for a forceful American response and took the unusual step of making public evidence from the intelligence community that it had "high confidence" the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons against civilians on Aug. 21.”

Once again, Barack Obama has shown that he excels at backing down and surrendering, especially when his precious legacy is imperiled.


This time his retreat seems to be in the national interest!













http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579046902682624072.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Unclench YOUR Fist, Mr. President!

By John W. Lillpop

As President Obama inches ever closer to a unilateral strike against Syria, without UN or US Congressional support, and without America’s most reliable ally, the British, following in puppy-dog obedience, The One finds himself in an awful quandary, entirely of his own making.

For it is Obama, not former President George W. Bush, who is now obsessed with Weapons of Mass Destruction, such obsession driving Obama to issue a “red line” threat to the Syrians more than a year ago as reported at the reference.

On August 20, 2012, Obama said:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

Of course that statement came in the middle of a presidential political campaign in which The One was anxious to prove that he was tough enough to warrant a second term as Commander-In-Chief.

Unfortunately, Obama’s “red line” threat was apparently seen as little more than campaign rhetoric by Syria who, just one year later, on August 21, 2013, defied Obama with a chemical attack that Secretary of State John Kerry has described as "the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians" in the suburbs of Damascus...”

Having failed to frighten or convince anyone, other than mindless Democrat voters with his smooth-talking campaign drivel, The One is now posturing to save face by risking a third world war in order to punish Syria for challenging the power and authority of the self-anointed Messiah from Chicago.

The One is now threatening a “limited” war, just to show the recalcitrant Syrians that he will not be defied---Allah notwithstanding!

Obama’s ability to wage unilateral war may be Unconstitutional and a “moral obscenity,” but it almost certainly will not be limited.

In order to be limited, the people that Obama would punish must endure an onslaught of Tomahawk missiles without fighting back.

Indeed, Obama’s naïve plans for a “Limited” assault could spin out of control, and rile the Russians, the Chinese, and other evil men into a regional war, or even Word War 111.

Before acting impulsively and without considering the unintended consequences of a face-saving war, The One should consider his own words from March of 2009 in which he preached to the Iranian people as reported at reference 2:

"So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders," Mr Obama said in the video. "We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the US, Iran and the international community."


At his inauguration last month, the president said his administration would reach out to rival states, declaring "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

In his message, Mr Obama also stated, “We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”

Well said, Mr. President!

Perhaps it is time for YOU to unclench your fist and cease those meaningless “red line” threats?



Reference 1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html#no_link1

Reference 2

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/90101/Obama-makes-plea-to-people-of-Iran

Obama: Haunted and Befuddled by the Ghost of W!

By John W. Lillpop

As President Barack Obama continues to dither, bob and weave, and tap dance around the serious issue of dealing with Muslim war mongers throughout Africa and the Middle East, his task is made all the more difficult because of his neurotic obsession with former President George W. Bush.

W.’s ghost has apparently taken up residence at the White House and visits with Obama each morning as the president shaves. During his early morning visits, Ghost Bush reminds Obama that attacking Syria, without Congressional or UN approval, and lacking any legitimate threat to the interests of the United States is both Unconstitutional and immoral.

Ghost Bush points out that his namesake secured appropriate approvals before invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
In the case of Iraq, W. proudly trumpeted his “Coalition of the Willing.”

Ghost Bush taunts The One further by asking, “What coalition of the willing” have you assembled, Mr. President? Judging from editorials in the press, recent polls, and numerous negative statements from folks like Senator John McCain and others, your Coalition consists of only yourself.

Even the British have announced a reversal of their passion for the Obama war.”

Clearly, Mr. President, this has the potential to be another huge foreign policy failure, nearly as onerous as the Obamacare mess that is just weeks away.

Which brings up another point: Won’t commanding a war, which could escalate into World War 111, interfere with your ability to implement the ghastly Obamacare war on the American people here at home?

You also face challenges on the budget, debt ceiling and immigration.

Face it sir, you simply do not have time to waste on a silly middle-east war! And do not forget the sequestration bug which has decimated the military and limited your war-making options!

All in all sir, W. thinks your best option would be to just punt the Syrian mess. Justify your action by referring to awful war mistakes made by W. and the budget fiasco that Republicans have created!

Just say no to war, Barack! Do it in honor of that silly, undeserved Nobel Peace prize that you received in 2009!

Do it to affirm your most important legacy item of all as the Non-Bush president!

Since Obeying the Law Is Optional Under Obama, When It Comes to ObamaCare, LET’S JUST SAY NO!

By John W. Lillpop


From failure to comply with the War Powers Act, to ignoring and subverting border security and immigration laws, to using the IRS against political adversaries, to illegal spying on American citizens, to Fast and Furious gun running, to unlawful actions against conservative reporters, to continued foreign aid to Egypt despite the military coup there, to recess appointment violations, and scores of other serious high crimes and misdemeanors, President Barack Obama has treated the rule of law with utter contempt and disrespect.

Obama’s legal doctrine can be summarized as follows: The rule of law is sacrosanct…unless the president disagrees with the law, in which case the law becomes optional, at the whim and whimsy of the most tyrannical president in US history and his army of leftist outlaws.

That being the case, one wonders why any American blessed with relatively sound mind and body would even consider enrolling in the Marxist train wreck disparagingly known as Obamacare?

Why would one act against his or her own best interests when the person whom is sworn, by oath, to be the nation’s chief law enforcer pursues a far-left agenda and goofy ideology even when that agenda is completely contrary to law?

As Republicans fight each other over the best way to end the Obamacare nightmare in order to implement the wishes of the majority of Americans, it seems as though we the people the best leverage and greatest motivation for ending the Obama intrusion into 1/6th of the US economy.

To patriotic Americans, you have a unique opportunity to turn back tyranny and win one for liberty!

When October 1 arrives, let your intelligence and revolutionary spirit thrive: When it comes to Obamacare, JUST SAY NO!

When Did Labor Unions Go Republican, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

In his weekly radio address, President Barack Obama sought to blame all of the woes facing his Marxist health care scam on Republicans in Congress.

According to the President, Republicans, by trying to avoid a devastating “train wreck” that a new entitlement would bring to future generations of already- bankrupt Americans, are nothing but obstructionists to his loopy progressive nonsense.

As reported at reference 1:

President Obama on Saturday offered one of his strongest defenses to date of his signature domestic achievement, lambasting Republican critics of his health care law as obstructionists who are playing politics with the well-being and economic security of millions of Americans.

In blunt terms, Mr. Obama used his weekly address to describe health insurance as a “right” and distinguished states that have embraced his law against those that have not.

He said the Affordable Care Act is already helping young adults stay on their parents’ health plans and offering free preventative care.

“But there’s also a group of Republicans in Congress working hard to confuse people, and making empty promises that they’ll either shut down the health care law, or, if they don’t get their way, they’ll shut down the government,” he said.

“Think about that,” he added. “They’re actually having a debate between hurting Americans who will no longer be denied affordable care just because they’ve been sick — and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process. And many Republicans are more concerned with how badly this debate will hurt them politically than they are with how badly it’ll hurt the country.”

His defense of the law comes less than two months before state-by-state insurance markets, or “exchanges,” start to enroll Americans without employer-based insurance who may buy coverage with the help of government subsidies.”

Obama’s fact-starved defense of his legacy accomplishment ignores the fact that some of the harshest criticism of his namesake law emanates from comrades on the very far left, namely, big labor unions.

As reported at reference 2:

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

The letter was penned by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald “D.” Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act,” they begin, “you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them.

Sadly, that promise is under threat…We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”

The union leaders are concerned that Obamacare’s employer mandate drives smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status, because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers. “We have a problem,” they write, and “you need to fix it.”

“The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe,” they continue. “Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”

Clearly, big labor is not impressed with the fact that ObamaCare will add 30 million uninsured to the rolls of the insured AND, in the process, reduce health care costs!

And what about the fact that Obama has personally carried the bitter water that exempts Congress critters and their overpaid, under worked staffs from the ravages of Obamacare?

What about the fact that elements of Obamacare have been delayed by Obama to avoid the political fall out likely in 2014?

Still, the labor union experience is a trove of invaluable experience for would-be socialists: Namely, Socialism is cool, except when compared to the fruit of free markets!


Ref 1 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/17/obama-uses-radio-address-describe-health-insurance/#ixzz2cJxFVlth

Ref 2
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/15/labor-leaders-obamacare-will-shatter-their-health-benefits-cause-nightmare-scenarios/