God Has Spoken…

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Sorry, time-limited, scope-limited military action.Kinetically even! 🙂

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

…At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice.  Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people.  He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.  In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day.  Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city.  We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”–President Obama Last night.

Gee, in 2009 when the student revolution against Ahmadinejad came and went when it was crushed BRUTALLY he did nothing. No outrage.

Darfur, in the Sudan must be next. That’s a genocide.

Then there’s North Korea.

China, people are sent to gulags and imprisoned or just “disappear” all the time.

How about Cuba, Venezuela, Ethopia, Zimbabwe…

Oh that’s right, Liberals hate having their shortcomings pointed out to them. They were righteous and we just let them be righteous and bask in their superiority.

And “feel good” liberalism.

They are all puffed up with a sense of greatness right now. The fact that they are ridiculously hypocritical, yet again, is not the be mentioned.

Especially, the “Gadhafi must go” and now he has he ruled out targeting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

So what is the end game here then?

And the rebels are now being supported by Al-Qaeda, and who’s supporting the Rebels, we are!

So that’s why I secretly think he wants the “rebels” to do it for him. Because if Gadhafi stays in power he will slaughter his enemies. That’s a given and Obama knows this. But his “superior morality” won’t extend to doing in war what you are supposed to do in war.

Win.

That’s dirty George Bush “unilateral” “cowboy” stuff.

Of course, since this is a tribal war, the rebels will undoubtedly slaughter the pro-Gadhafi forces if they win.

And if indeed, Al-Qaeda is supplying the rebels and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the coming elections in Egypt, Obama may have just created the biggest, nastiest mess for the US in generations that could last generations.

But his heart was in the right place.

He had the best of intentions.

So cut him a break.

Sorry, NO!

The road to hell is pave with liberalism’s “good intentions”.

All thanks to our Dear Leader. 🙂

Victor David Hanson: President Obama just gave a weird speech. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes…

His dithering and confusing Orwellian  need to be a COMMUNITY ORIGINIZER, perhaps.

“Um, I think we’re all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is “What are we going to call ourselves?” um, and I think it comes down to a choice between `The League Against Salivating Monsters’ or my own personal preference, which is `The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society’. Um, one drawback with that… the abbreviation is `CLITORIS’.- Red Dwarf episode “Polymorph”.

So that’s why he waited a month and up to the point where the resurgent Gadhafi was about to crush the rebels with superior firepower.

I think somewhere a flock of ducks just went lame.

So it’s up to his superior morality to decide who is being slaughtered and whose not.

He’s God. The decision of who lives and who dies is in his hands.

Gee, that sounds like ObamaCare. 🙂

And as for the liberal harp count on how much Iraq and Afghanistan cost (in just 6 days):

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.

downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.

And operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.

In 6 days, God made $600 million dollars that we don’t have disappear. So how long before we need a “stimulus” or a “quantitative easing” to borrow more money for the Chinese for this war that isn’t war because Liberals don’t even recognize the word exists when they start one.

In 6 Days God made a mountain of debt, again!

But damn if they don’t “feel good” about themselves and puffed up their superior moral selves!

And how dare you poke holes in their superiority!

How dare you question GOD himself!

Charles Krauthammer: President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor.

True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Qaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi, and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”

But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?

Well, let’s see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.

And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?

● Russia’s Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.

● China is calling for a cease-fire to be put in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Qaddafi in power, his people at his mercy, and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.

● Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.

And how about NATO? Let’s see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Qaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience, and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

And on the 7th day, God went and played another round of golf while dreaming of being a sports analyst on ESPN… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Follow the Money to Civility

Remember (The Liberals won’t) the stink the Liberals had about Sarah Palin and the “crosshairs” map Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence.

CNN even apologized on air:

CNN’s John King: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

https://i1.wp.com/justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.png

I wonder if they’ll do the same for Gov. Walker. ROTFL! They won’t even air it or discuss it!

Then there’s the Left’s “Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is obviously a

Kochsukkker”

That’s you’re “mature”, “adult” Liberal. They are rational and capable of compromise and negotiation.

Right.

We need some “right wing sheep” (as the Left  online usually refers to people who disagree with them) to teach the kindergarten Left some manners and how to be an “adult”.

Good Luck! I think the universe would have to turn purple first!

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Watch a “mature” Communication Worker Union Thug (and if you’ve ever seen “Lie to Me” watch for the hate and contempt flash across his face):

The watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zm_Fl3AszuU

But remember, the rules Liberals want for everyone else doesn’t apply to them.

They just want to control YOU.

Do as they say, not as they do. Period.

“I’m proud to be with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail that gets you going,’’ Capuano said at the rally. “Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.’’

Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano apologized for controversial comments he made during a labor rally on the steps of the State House on Tuesday.

But that’s only a political apology you know. Not a real one.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Left punk’d Gov. Walker like a 5 year old calling someone on the phone to embarrass them ala Bart Simpson.

This is the “adult conversation” you’ll get from the Left.

And the Unions are unhappy that if Walker wins they will no longer be in control of both sides of the “collective bargaining” where they collectively bargain with taxpayers money.

You see, the Unions collect Millions of $$ by force from their members. Then they give it to Democrats to get them elected. Then when the “collective bargaining” comes along the Democrat they got elected by buying them the election sit across from them and “negotiates” a deal with the Union that will be funding their re-election.

Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”

Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election. (Ann Coulter)

It’s a vampiric symbiosis. And it’s YOUR Money!

In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. 😦

The Unions paid for nearly 2/3 of Obama’s record-breaking $750 Million dollar buy off in the 2008 election and it’s estimated that Obama will spend $1 Billion for 2012 and the Union money will be the major reason.

So that’s why Obama is so involved in The Midwest, and bored and uninterested in The Middle East.

It’s all about the money! And the money buys power!!

And power is what Liberals really want.

But what are the contributions that public employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce down toward zero the accountability of public employees — both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens. (IBD)

But very good for the Union, The Democrats, and The Left in general.

This is the ultimate in parasitic drug addiction to money and the Democrats will fight to very last drop of your blood (kind of like Gadhafi)!!!

That’s why one of the great 20th-century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” (IBD)

And FDR we all know was a “right wing sheep”. 🙂

So if you get to elect people who will pork your ass off will let someone else take away that pork?

Sound like Entitlements also?

It should. It’s the same problem in reality.

ObamaCare?

“Is it a violation of the House rule wherein members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States?” Rep.Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) asked the chairman.

Bet it never raised an eyebrow when disparaging remarks were made about George Bush. 🙂

“In two previous gentlemen’s [sic] statements on the amendment,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “Both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ‘Obamacare.’ That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States…It is clearly in violation of House rules against that.” (DC)

But “reaganomics”, “torture memo”  “star wars” (derogatory term by the left for Reagan’s SDI), “Me Decade/Decade of Greed”- Used by left-wing anti-Reagan critics to attribute the prosperity of the ’80s to selfishness,”Trickle-down”- Used by the media to give a Marie Antoinette “let ’em eat cake” slant to what free-market economists call “supply-side economics” are Ok because the Left said them.

And the same hysterical childishness will and has ensued every time you challenge the Left.

Talking away the Left favourite toys just makes them cry and whine and throw a tantrum.

Just like a child.

And that’s the  “adult conversation” as the President put it that you get from the Left.

Rejoice.

Next time you hear a Union person talk about the “American Dream” (of which 88% of Americans aren’t in Unions) and how curtailing Union power will kill it just remember… The American Dream is not a handout.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie