The President still emphasizes the “credible threat of military action”, but does anyone think Obama won’t seize upon the Russia-Syria WMD proposal as the preferable way out of his red-line corner than congressional vote gambits?
Probably not, and given the character of the man Americans inexplicably re-hired to wield our nukes (and continue to wreck the economy), the Putin proposal that Assad turn over control of its chemical weapons to international monitors is likely the least-worse scenario to “resolve” President Obama’s Syrian debacle, given other likely options. Continue reading
On September 10, 1813, after winning the Battle of Lake Erie at Put-In-Bay, Ohio, thus vanquishing the British Royal Navy from the Great Lakes in the War of 1812, U.S. Commander Oliver Hazard Perry declared: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”
200 years later, Vladamir Putin’s Russian Navy guards Syria’s bays for Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry previously met Bashar al-Assad and declared him a “reformer”. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Putin and declared a “re-set” before Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama met Putin-puppet Dmitry Medvedev and declared post-election strategic and nuclear arsenal-surrender “flexibility”; even as he begged to meet with Iran’s mullahs as they mowed down liberty-seeking youth in the streets. Continue reading
Didn’t the serial Apologist-in-Chief just get finished trumping the birthers by authenticating his natural American born, eligible-to-be-President-of -the-United-States bona fides, or is that a different super man:
After recently undertaking a journey to walk — not fly — across the United States in the “Grounded” storyline and reconnect with the country and everyday Americans, Superman appears to be taking another step that could have major implications for his national identity: in Action Comics #900…
…Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way,” from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume.
Barack Hussein Obama II’s long-form birth certificate confirms my long-held view that the greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty are not assimilation-challenged, illegal Mexican immigrants, but rather, United States natural-born-liberal-Democrat citizens whether they trace their ancestors to the Mayflower or the Kansas wife of a Kenyan.
Consider the judgment of the gullible, yet naturally born to Illinois Republicans, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with superiority-at-3am-to-Obama smarts, that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer.”
From Russia comes a teaching moment. In this article a leading Russian political analyst has predicted that the United States will break up and further expounds that it will break into six pieces. He blames this on the financial crisis that has been building since at least 1998. Whether he is right or wrong, I can’t say because I’m not an economist, but it is worrisome.
That, in and of itself, is bad enough but there was something else, somewhat overlooked while all are focusing on the prediction.
He even suggested that “we could claim Alaska – it was only granted on lease, after all.” Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
Okay, you’re asking, what’s so teaching about that? Well… Russia is salivating over the possible demise of the United States due to a breakup of the union that has held us together for over 2 centuries because it will give them an opportunity to reclaim something that was once worthless to them but now has a lot of value. The oil that the U.S. government refuses to consider comes to mind but that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this article.
The lesson is in noting how Russia bartered Alaska to gain something for itself and the U.S. wanted Alaska for its own reasons. We do this every day in our own lives when we purchase goods and services from corporations, companies, and small businesses. We make the decision whether to surrender our hard earned cash for those goods and services that we want them badly enough to give up the money for them.
How different is the regret Russia feels over having sold Alaska so cheaply in the past only to discover that it had more value than it ever imagined and the individual regret of all the money spent on the latest gadgets, bigger cars and houses, and so on? Russia wants to reclaim Alaska. They don’t want to pay for it because they don’t want to have to return the money that was given to them in exchange. Nor do they want to pay for its real worth now in terms of development of resources.
Those corporations, companies, and small businesses are thriving while the individual has practically bankrupted himself for those “got to haves.” But the individual doesn’t want to face the fact that he is the one who surrendered something of real value for something that had fleeting worth so he looks to the government to reclaim his money but he can’t do that without being considered a thief so he comes up with a great term and rationalization: wealth redistribution. The individual wants his money back but he doesn’t want to return the goods and services he purchased and he certainly doesn’t want to return them is the same or better condition than they were when he purchased them.
Two sides of the same coin.
While Alaska might be considered a big something and wealth redistribution, in comparison, might seem a small something, right or wrong is not distinguished by the size of the thing being discussed in such a manner.
Consider this a Thanksgiving open thread.