ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Obama betrays the Constitution

What's remarkable isn't that Barack Hussein Obama is ignoring the U.S. Constitution and its limits on the powers of his office. What is remarkable is that the New York Times is calling him out on it:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written....

But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war. In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria is not a problem. Immigrants in the USA are a problem. The complete lack of a southern border is a problem. The expanding credit demand gap and the outstanding debt to GDP ratio is a problem. The decline of Christendom is a problem. The rise of the new Caliphate will likely pose a serious problem for future generations, but there will be no future generation capable of fighting it if the West in general and the USA in particular refuses to provide it with a coherent opposition that is not riven by its sympathizers.

We are waiting for Martel.

It is an appallingly bad idea for Obama to attempt to drag a war-weary, divided nation into a war that has nothing to do with the national interest. It is such a bad idea that even the New York Times is capable of recognizing it.

Labels: ,

90 Comments:

Anonymous realmatt September 12, 2014 5:47 AM  

Its ok guys. Hes sending the first all female infantry. This is just to show hes not muslim and hes for da ladiezzzz. 2 birds with one stone.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 5:51 AM  

This is incredibly racist by the NY Times. Just like it was racist to notice how evil Obama's mentor, Jeremiah Wright, was way back during the first campaign, or Obama's ties to organized crime, or how, within his first few weeks in office, Obama let hardened, convicted white-hating criminals free because his Justice Department was too lazy to prosecute them.

Racist, racist, racist.

The country's doomed at this point; why not enjoy hoisting the leftist scum on their own petard?

Self-deserved rape!

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 September 12, 2014 5:51 AM  

9 silks broke the constitution years ago - but you're right again: are the prog libtards loosing faith in their messiah? It'll take a few Gay saviour rights statements to restore the halo. Perhaps if gay coloured women could be in the first wave of front line soldiers the war will take on the correct "rights" story line.
Gay Muslim women fight ISIS weapons of mass destruction radicalized anti mainstream moderate democracy loving Muslims. See - a just war after all. The NYT will run with that. Good muslims save even better muslims from nasty WMD not true [secretly white Western head hacking forced to be that way] muslims. Just don't mention Muslims and yet still explain it in the above terms. Challenging, but NYT can do it.

Anonymous Red September 12, 2014 5:51 AM  

Given the level of obvious propaganda about ISIS there's a decent chance this is just one big ploy to finish overthrowing Syria.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 September 12, 2014 5:55 AM  

"losing" the plot-line :

Blogger ErisGuy September 12, 2014 6:24 AM  

By “appalling bad idea,” you mean a bad idea for the United States. It’s just another tool for Obama, his backers and minions, to destroy the USA.

Blogger Jamie-R September 12, 2014 6:28 AM  

The future champion of the Cross over the Crescent will be referred to by western liberals as a brute and a nazi, or as it was formerly known in Europe, a man.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 12, 2014 6:40 AM  

How can a man this lazy, do this much damage?

Admittedly a unique situation. Six years ago the entire left wing establishment drastically over-invested themselves in a pretentious novelty candidate. They were so in love with him they actually wanted him to be martyred before he could disappoint them.

Now they are stuck following him, no matter what. I do wonder what the final fallout of the Obama presidency will be?

Hard corps liberalism so disgraced it can't get elected again for another 30 years?

Or will the left wing successfully suppress the public memory of his failure?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 12, 2014 6:54 AM  

Obama is following orders not issuing them.

Anonymous zippo September 12, 2014 6:56 AM  

Your headline reads, "Obama betrays the Constitution."

It should read, "Obama betrays the Constitution, yet again."

"Immigrants in the USA are a problem. The complete lack of a southern border is a problem. The expanding credit demand gap and the outstanding debt to GDP ratio is a problem. The decline of Christendom is a problem."

You call all this a problem. The Democrats call it a platform.



Anonymous zippo September 12, 2014 7:00 AM  

"Hard core liberalism so disgraced it can't get elected again for another 30 years?"

Not how it works. The Dem coalition doesn't care about things like competency, honor, or the law. It cares about two things: free gibsmedats, and sticking it to whitey. These people vote on race and/or their pet hatreds, not on sound policy or the good of the country. And now (or very very soon) that they have the numbers, the US is effectively a one-party state. No disgrace, no matter how huge, will pry their claws off the levers of power.

Anonymous zen0 September 12, 2014 7:15 AM  

It all still sounds more like a PR exercise against a foe that seems like a band of performance artists in a muslim minstrel show.

Anonymous Fran September 12, 2014 7:17 AM  

It's not like this is the first time he violated the constitution...hello Obama Care...Hello prisoner exchange without notifying Congress...
MSM: See we believe in constitution. Bad Obama. Vote Hillary!

Anonymous Hunsdon September 12, 2014 7:23 AM  

"Well, when the president does it, that means its not illegal." Who said that, again?

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 7:26 AM  

Obama is following orders not issuing them.

Did his handlers forget to notify the NY Times? How does having their number-one media mouthpiece accuse him of betraying his oath play into their master plan?

Anonymous SJW September 12, 2014 7:38 AM  

SAVE US HILARY! !!

Anonymous Sarcophilus September 12, 2014 7:43 AM  

Sartre is more followed than Augustine. We are waiting for Godot, not Martel.

If Christendom were sane, the million innocents per year here in clinics would provoke a military response, and we would spend 44+ years negotiating with the nascent caliphate.

Instead, Christians in the US are cheering getting tough on them terrorist towel-heads. Gay marriage is forgotten too. Even the unfeminized church.

Fear and wrath make one foolish and stupid.

How were the Chaldean Christians doing under Saddam? Today?

Is not the largest GOP complaint with Rand Paul that he wouldn't do what Obama is doing?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben September 12, 2014 7:49 AM  

It's amazing how despite Obama's numerous unilateral wars, neoconservative arm chair generals still try to paint him as "weak on national defense." They truly wouldn't drop that line unless Obama unilaterally started a war with Russia.

Blogger Bob Wallace September 12, 2014 7:49 AM  

We don't need Charles Martel. We need Vlad Tepes.

Anonymous Question Quest September 12, 2014 7:56 AM  

Hunsdon September 12, 2014 7:23 AM

"Well, when the president does it, that means its not illegal." Who said that, again?


“Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer’,”

Who said THAT?

Blogger Joshua Dyal September 12, 2014 7:56 AM  

It's amazing how despite Obama's numerous unilateral wars, neoconservative arm chair generals still try to paint him as "weak on national defense." They truly wouldn't drop that line unless Obama unilaterally started a war with Russia.

It's not amazing at all. His numerous unilateral wars are petty, unpredictable, poorly executed without a will to win, subject to cancellation as soon as public opinion or peer pressure is put on him, and generally are all the wrong wars anyway. He is weak on defense.

Not to infer by implication that neoconservative military hawkishness is the right strategy... just pointing out that at least this specific complaint is 100% true.

Anonymous Michael of Charlotte September 12, 2014 8:01 AM  

Vox,

Unfortunately, things are going to have to get much worse in this country before a Charles Martel can emerge. You're going to have to have terrorism attacks like what occurred in Boston become much more common before the people of this country are willing to accept what must be done.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:05 AM  

Have we ever simultaneously armed and fought an opponent before?

Blogger Hanns Strudle extra gooey September 12, 2014 8:09 AM  

He can get bombing updates while golfing.

Anonymous paradox September 12, 2014 8:13 AM  

Yarp... the only way to deal with ISIS is to secure US borders. And instead of giving weapons to "rebels" aka ISIS, you arm Americans.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic September 12, 2014 8:14 AM  

Given the level of obvious propaganda about ISIS there's a decent chance this is just one big ploy to finish overthrowing Syria.

That is my suspicion as well.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 12, 2014 8:17 AM  

Have we ever simultaneously armed and fought an opponent before?

Well yes. But it was never official policy, just a solid business model.

Anonymous Incurvatus September 12, 2014 8:17 AM  

How did we miss the opportunity all this time to refer to Obama as "America's Affirmative Action President™?"

Blogger James Dixon September 12, 2014 8:28 AM  

Vox, with all due respect, How can your betray something you were never even on speaking terms with.

Anonymous Peter16 September 12, 2014 8:29 AM  

Being outwardly strong and pushing for greater challenges while becoming increasingly inwardly weak is a great formula for disaster. Like a house with termites the structure could suddenly collapse to the bewilderment of those who didn't realize what was happening.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:29 AM  

And what war would be complete without sending in the all-gay, crack First Pansy Division...

Blogger Owen September 12, 2014 8:31 AM  

"ISIS in Iraq and Syria" is redundant, isn't it? Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:32 AM  

Obama is typical of 99% black men: willing to break the law on a whim.

Blogger Glen Filthie September 12, 2014 8:32 AM  

"It is an appallingly bad idea for Obama to attempt to drag a war-weary, divided nation into a war that has nothing to do with the national interest."
------------------------------------

So when IS it a 'good time' to drag a nation to war, Vox? When the rag heads fly a jet through a sky scraper? When they set a dirty nuke off in New York?

This is what the libertarians don't understand. Maybe world politics doesn't interest you, but world politics definitely are interested in YOU.

You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you. What is TRULY remarkable here is that Obutthole is right for once...

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:33 AM  

It is an appallingly bad idea for Obama to attempt to drag a war-weary, divided nation into a war that has nothing to do with the national interest.

Which is why he is doing it on the cheap. War without soldiers. Endless coalitions of nations contributing nothing. No strategic goals. No operations plans capable of achieving those goals. A finely crafted war that is only large enough to say "look, I'm doing something".

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:46 AM  

I think we are watching the death-throes of the progressive era. I am doing what I can to lay the groundwork for a new American Republic from sea to shining sea.

Angelo Codevilla shows us what our current defeat looks like and what our victory will look like: http://www.claremont.org/article/victory-what-it-will-take-to-win/#.VBLppMFxlhG

Anonymous karsten September 12, 2014 8:49 AM  

"Given the level of obvious propaganda about ISIS there's a decent chance this is just one big ploy to finish overthrowing Syria."

Bingo.

This is, of course, just the latest of our endless wars on behalf of Israel.

Anonymous CarpeOro September 12, 2014 8:49 AM  

Ah, but Vox, you forget. He is the Peace president. Did he not win a Nobel prize for it? You just forget the small print: Peace of the grave.

Anonymous a_peraspera September 12, 2014 8:52 AM  

Glen - the correct preventative is to deport all muslims, not to send thousands more US soldiers to their deaths in far-off places that no one cares about.

Blogger Akulkis September 12, 2014 8:52 AM  

How can a man this lazy, do this much damage?

He's not lazy -- he's just putting his energy into his Marxist goals, as opposed to goals which would benefit the country.

Anonymous a_peraspera September 12, 2014 8:52 AM  

Oh - and to secure our borders.

Anonymous karsten September 12, 2014 8:56 AM  

"So when IS it a 'good time' to drag a nation to war, Vox? When the rag heads fly a jet through a sky scraper? When they set a dirty nuke off in New York?

This is what the libertarians don't understand. Maybe world politics doesn't interest you, but world politics definitely are interested in YOU.

You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you."


Amazing that anyone can even spout lunacy like the above with a straight face.

It is precisely because of our constant warmongering on behalf of Israel that those people DO want to commit the acts named above.

It's because we are Israel's lapdog, sticking our noses into places we don't belong and shouldn't care about, and because keep importing these foreigners to our shores, then they have both reason and opportunity to be "interested" in us. They're coming after us because we, masochistically, keep uselessly antagonizing them.

We're manufacturing our own enemies -- and that's been our masters' stratagem all along: try to turn THEIR enemies (Israel's enemies) into OUR enemies.

Convenient for them. Ruinous for us.

Anonymous PA September 12, 2014 8:57 AM  

Anytime you hear somebody make tough-sounding hawkish noises without even once saying the word "immigration," you know you're dealing with neocon filth.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 8:58 AM  

How can a man this lazy, do this much damage?

He has other people to do the legwork for him. How much energy and ambition does it take to listen to your advisers/handlers tell you they think Assad should be taken out and then say yea or nay before you head out for 18 holes?

Anonymous buckeyecopperhead September 12, 2014 8:58 AM  

He has also betrayed Shiva.

Obama: Bali Mangthi Kali Ma.
[Sacrifice is what Mother Kali desires]
Shakthi Degi Kali Ma.
[Power is what Mother Kali will grant]
Kali ma... Kali ma... Kali ma, shakthi deh!
[Mother Kali... Mother Kali... Mother Kali, give me power!]

America: Om Namha Shivaye, Om Namha Shivaye, Om Namha Shivaye...
[Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God... ]

Anonymous maniacprovost September 12, 2014 9:00 AM  

Glen Filthie, Based on previous history, terrorists only come over here to bother us when we GIVE THEM VISAS AND TRAIN THEM TO CARRY OUT THE ATTACKS. Hence the anti-legal immigration position

Blogger Akulkis September 12, 2014 9:03 AM  

It's amazing how despite Obama's numerous unilateral wars, neoconservative arm chair generals still try to paint him as "weak on national defense." They truly wouldn't drop that line unless Obama unilaterally started a war with Russia.

It's not amazing at all. His numerous unilateral wars are petty, unpredictable, poorly executed without a will to win, subject to cancellation as soon as public opinion or peer pressure is put on him, and generally are all the wrong wars anyway. He is weak on defense.


Wasting men, equipment and EXPENSIVE munitions on pointless expeditions is not merely "weak on defense" it's actually degrading our defense in ways that mere neglect can take years to accomplish.

Remember who Clinton completely depleted the national stock of cruise missiles through months of continuous (and pointlessly ineffective) missile attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime.

If non-nuclear air-power fails to win wars, long-range non-nuclear missile-power even less so.

Blogger Akulkis September 12, 2014 9:04 AM  

He can get bombing updates while golfing.

"I heard it on the news"

/obama

"There's an app for that"

/millenial

Anonymous dh September 12, 2014 9:08 AM  

Honestly, the NYTIMES shows more back bone the National Review and other so-called conservatives, who have never seen a war they didn't like.

Anonymous rho September 12, 2014 9:09 AM  

This is what the libertarians don't understand. Maybe world politics doesn't interest you, but world politics definitely are interested in YOU.

It's easy to write off non-interventionism as disinterest. But it's not true. It's not disinterest, it's to avoid making things worse.

By going into Afghanistan and Iraq, and Syria, and failing to accomplish anything permanent or even notable, we've tarnished the reputation of our ability to project force. It now looks like the mighty American military can be beaten by savages if they just wait us out. That's what happens when we take "interest" in world affairs, as you seem to define "interest".

Blogger Lucas September 12, 2014 9:10 AM  

Bankers need the money from the war industry. Obama is no fool; his masters told him to do it.

Blogger Akulkis September 12, 2014 9:11 AM  

Yarp... the only way to deal with ISIS is to secure US borders. And instead of giving weapons to "rebels" aka ISIS, you arm Americans.

B-b-b-b-b-but veterans and Christians and Ron Paul supporters and people who say the word Constitution and legal gun owners are The Real Terrorists (TM).

/splc

Blogger Akulkis September 12, 2014 9:24 AM  

You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you. What is TRULY remarkable here is that Obutthole is right for once...


Ever see that old Abbot & Costello routine where Costello solves a couple of math problems using the most ridiculous logic imaginable? Just because Costello gets those three problems right, would you want a person using the same thinking to be your accountant, or crediting/debiting your bank account whenever you have a transaction?

This is definitely a case of "even a stopped clock is correct two times per day."

The problem is... once we DO get involved in Iraq again... who will be doing the strategic planning? The same people who last year were arming ISIS, and are still fully convinced that ISIS truly are "the good guys" in all of this.

The only reason Obama's ire is up is because the beheading of two journalists has embarrassed him.... with... of all his constituencies... THE PRESS (why the NYT hasn't joined in, I don't know... maybe they think that given the opportunity, ISIS wouldn't behead an NYT reporter???)

This is a good opportunity to get Iran into some position where it doesn't view us as "The Great Satan".... Sell them some .mil equipment, with the currency being crude oil. Sell them enough F-4 parts to make them operational for a couple of months.... long enough to do the work on ISIS, but not much longer after that (such that even if they did put some to the side and not use them... the consumables would be all used up preparing for their next fight).

Temporary alliance...purely temporary. This could all be done through indirect negotiations in Switzerland or any other place that is suitably neutral.

Anonymous paradox September 12, 2014 9:30 AM  

Oh... look, no wonder the banksters want in Syria.

Anonymous MrGreenMan September 12, 2014 9:32 AM  

I read the article and saw the line from the Obamabot defenders: Congress opposes him! Gridlock! We need a strong man to execute and get things done! He is getting things done!

Didn't I read this exact sentiment in the abridged cartoon version of the Road to Serfdom?

Anonymous Brother Thomas September 12, 2014 9:34 AM  

There must be a widening split amongst the power elite. Either that or Obama must think he actually runs things. Interesting times indeed.

Anonymous Stilicho September 12, 2014 9:36 AM  

What is TRULY remarkable here is that Obutthole is right for once...

What is "right" about arming and supporting a terrorist group without any authority to do so, then attacking that same terrorist group, again without authority to do so?

Anonymous Stilicho September 12, 2014 9:39 AM  

The only reasonable response by the United States at this point is to deliver Obama to Assad, bound, gagged, and butt-plugged along with a formal apology for arming and supporting ISIS

Anonymous Stilicho September 12, 2014 9:44 AM  

This is a good opportunity to get
...the fuck out of that cesspool, leaving behind a message along the lines of "We don't give a flying fuck what you miserable mutton munching goat-humpers do to each other, but if ANY of you EVER fuck with us again you are ALL going to regret the day your mama first said "baaaahh" to your daddy."

Blogger James Dixon September 12, 2014 9:54 AM  

> When they set a dirty nuke off in New York?

You say that as it it's a bad thing. Most of the country would probably just want them to add LA, Chicago, and DC to the list.

> You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you.

Why exactly do we have nukes again, Glen?


Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 September 12, 2014 9:54 AM  

The Harbinger, Jonathan Cahn sold about 2 million copies. So not quite a blip on the radar.
The mystery of the Shemitah, may well outsell it.

this isn't going to play out in slow motion. Nations, like bulls with rings in their noses will be dragged in and then, in one hour, destruction.

I sat down and watched "the New World" a few days ago. Pocahontas didn't die Pocahontas. She died Rebecca Rolfe - a born again, baptized convert to Christianity. When "missions" could seek to convert heathens/ pagans/ those in darkness the West had a reason to exist - to carry a light to the world.

Anonymous Stilicho September 12, 2014 10:10 AM  

Apparently, the NYT is WRONG. John Kerry says it's not a war:

“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry said. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”

I'll bet they've also got top men on the job at State. Top Men.

Anonymous Josh September 12, 2014 10:13 AM  

John Kerry says it's not a war:

More kinetic humanitarianism?

Anonymous Michael September 12, 2014 10:14 AM  

The military-industrial complex and the globalist bankers have been itching to bomb Syria for over a year, because Assad wouldn't allow the Saudis to run their gas pipeline through his land. Therefore, they created a problem by funding extremist groups in the middle-east in order to start up proxy uprisings and in turn fuel national outrage. Then they have their lackeys in the MSM stir up the fear propaganda about how the terrorists are coming over here (oh noes!), while the government intentionally leaves our southern borders wide open. Then they propose their "solution" - war and the further erosion of our rights. If all else fails, they'll use another false-flag event.

It never ends.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings September 12, 2014 10:25 AM  

Obama has put into action many of the hysterical claims of the left against GW Bush. Bush's fig leaf "consultation of Congress" wasn't what the Founders expected of a chief magistrate, but Obama isn't even bothering to pretend. So when do I get to see posters of Obama as Hitler, eh? When will I read chin-pulling deep thoughts about Obama's Imperial Presidency and the Constitution in the NYT, or the Atlantic, or the New Yorker, or MoJones?

Never, of course. The left does not actually care about the Constitution. It's just another paper-mache' mask they put on in order to further their Fascist goals.

Leftists were all convinced that come January 2009, GW Bush would declare an emergency martial law so he could stay on in the White House. If Obama actually does that in 2017, how many on the left will even care enough to peep out some tiny little "Oops! This wasn't what we had in mind?" I wonder? Not many. Because they will feel their love and adoration for Obama the symbol apparently for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 10:28 AM  

Just a small point, but since the quoted piece is an op-ed, it's not really the NYT calling him out on it. The op-ed editor might have been drunk at the time...

Anonymous Don September 12, 2014 10:39 AM  

One way street always to the left. Does arming ISIS move us there? Head on. Does bombing ISIS move us left? Go ahead even if we were arming them less than a month ago. Constitution? Wipe your ass with it or use it as a shield to protect the most egregious abuses of society and morality as long as it takes us left.

It is the same answer to every question Ice Age coming stop using fossil fuels, global warming stop using fossil fuels, everything remaining the same? stop using fossil fuels.

If the NYT called him out on it, it's only because they are acting as a trial balloon to see what flak he's going to be running against.

Anonymous A Visitor September 12, 2014 10:54 AM  

Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

As Fry would say, "Oh, he burned you!"

Since ISIS poses a new problem for the president, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires him to seek a new mandate from Congress.

Frank Reardon may have something to say about this (Seconds 21 and 22). The reason I say that (despite being in favor of the War Powers Resolution) is because he's already violated it once with Operation: Odyssey Dawn. Does Bruce and his cohorts really think, after Congress did nothing, that they'll do something this time around?

"In 2011, when Mr. Obama continued to bomb Libya after the 60-day limit, his lawyers argued that America’s supporting role in the NATO campaign was not substantial enough to quality as 'hostilities" Yes, because overthrowing a sovereign government (albeit one I felt no love for) does not qualify as hostilities.

How's Boehner's suit against Obama going? Oh, that'll teach him!

"Immigrants in the USA are a problem. The complete lack of a southern border is a problem. The expanding credit demand gap and the outstanding debt to GDP ratio is a problem. The decline of Christendom is a problem."

SHHHHHH, VOX! YOU CAN'T LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BACK! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY DEMAND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AND....OH NO....ELECT AN EVIL, MEAN BIGOTED RACIST TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2016 WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE PROBLEMS.

@Cataline

The Left won't suppress its memory of his failure. The public will do that to themselves.

"SAVE US HILARY! !!" It's like that bs "Run Liz, Run" video some bimbo made months ago with the refrain "because we need a woman for President." That'd be the coup de grace or racking (no pun intended; I am referring to this) of America depending on how bad it gets.

No, per Harvey Dent, the night is not darkest before the dawn. Sometimes it just remains dark indefinitely because the sun exploded, you were thrown feet cemented into the Atlantic, etc.

"How were the Chaldean Christians doing under Saddam? Today?"

They couldn't be baptized if you wanted to convert from Islam. Read Joseph Fadelle's The Price to Pay. Today, they're getting slaughtered.

@Johan

No, this is a first for fighting and arming. Future historians will most likely laugh and attempt to recreate such studies...in a lab.

@Shibes

Thank you. I laughed.

@Glen

He's wrong, not right. If he were right, he would've smoked them when they were marching north of Baghdad in open columns! He's doing this as window dressing. It won't work and with our open borders, it'll ensure one of the scenarios you described becomes reality...because diversity.

It is precisely because of our constant warmongering on behalf of Israel that those people DO want to commit the acts named above.

As Charlie Murphy says, "You wrong, Chad!" John Wesley, as quoted in The Doctrine of the Original Sin, Works (1841) "Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.''"

"There's an app for that"

Remember when apps were called applications?

Anonymous patrick kelly September 12, 2014 11:19 AM  

@GF:"So when IS it a 'good time' to drag a nation to war, Vox? When the rag heads fly a jet through a sky scraper? When they set a dirty nuke off in New York?"

Glen you ignorant neo-conuck slut, keep your nose north of the border where it belongs.

If you were really concerned about crashing jets and low tech nukes you'd be demanding all US troops come home and invade Mexico to pacify the invasion currently happening on the southern US border. They are here now, and that is where they are coming from to do whatever dastardly deeds they have planned, if any.

Blogger Glen Filthie September 12, 2014 11:57 AM  

HAR HAR HAR! I truly LOVE this place. A couple weeks ago I got taken into the boards when somebody called me a 'mid-wit'! HAR HAR HAR! Awesome! It is perhaps the classiest insult I ever received.

But this? A 'neo-canuck slut'? Looks like that one is the winner in the 'profane insult' category! I love it!

Hmmm...nuking Mexico, huh? Well, we have enough beaners to nanny the kids, cut the lawns and run the fast food burger joints and handle other unsavoury chores us rich people don't want to do...and a desert of radio active green glass would be a super border enhancement that some black baboon like Obutthole or some other Dhimmicrud fuck couldn't subvert with socialist legislation...let me think on it boys, and I'll let ya know!

Keep up the good work, everyone!

Anonymous liljoe September 12, 2014 12:10 PM  

@gf:You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you. What is TRULY remarkable here is that Obutthole is right for once...
He is right, but not for the reasons you espouse. limited air strikes w no troops will keep the military industrial moguls happy while preventing American youths from being blown up physically or mentally. Romney would have nuked someone by now.
interesting how Obama belabored the point about Isis not being Islamic? say what?

Anonymous Porky September 12, 2014 12:18 PM  

What is remarkable is that the New York Times is calling him out on it

Too late.

Anonymous Brian K September 12, 2014 12:30 PM  

Agreed. The ties between ISIS and the CIA are strong enough to suggest ISIS is a false flag/psyop used to provide justification for a war planned well in advance. Perhaps this is at the behest of the one nation which would benefit from such an invasion, but that is both Crimespeak and Badthought, and I must go flog myself accordingly.

Anonymous Porky September 12, 2014 12:36 PM  

A 'neo-canuck slut'?

Ignorant neo-conuck slut.

Well done, Kelly.

Anonymous Amok Time September 12, 2014 12:39 PM  

It is amazing that the Syrians and Iraqis or what ever their stupid names are, can't find the will to save themselves from 31,500 guys. Leave us out of it!!!

And do as Vox outlines, protect OUR borders and our citizens. We just had an army of more than 31K overwhelm our borders to destroy our way of live and Commander-in-Zero does nothing but offer tribute to them. Lets see a response to the Reconquesta in our own backyard!

My, how we have fallen in the last 50 years.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 12, 2014 12:54 PM  

"As Charlie Murphy says, "You wrong, Chad!" John Wesley, as quoted in The Doctrine of the Original Sin, Works (1841)"

Well shit, I guess that settles it then. I mean, he couldn't have possibly have a vested interest in saying that.

The fact of the matter is: it was America that was attacked, not Japan. You ought to think why that is.

Furthermore, Vox, you cannot be serious with your mention of Martel. That was a genuine military campaign. This is your governments letting in immigrants WITH THEIR EXPRESS PERMISSION.

If your wife were to distribute your money to beggars on you street without your permission, would they be robbers? Because that is what is happening now in the West.

Blogger tweell September 12, 2014 12:59 PM  

Kratman for President!

Blogger budbrewer September 12, 2014 1:26 PM  

"America's Affirmative Action President" is what an avid reader of this blog, and good friend of mine, has been calling this guy ever since he got elected.

Anonymous Just_Michael September 12, 2014 2:48 PM  

Whenever the New York Times stands up for the Constitution, it's time to start searching for its true agenda.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 4:00 PM  

If Obama were in his first term, I'd think the NYT was trying to make him look tough and decisive by taking the cautious side. Now, though, it's harder to figure.

Anonymous kh123 September 12, 2014 6:54 PM  

Had a former coworker post something about how he was glad that Obama was addressing the issue of ISIS beheadings. In effect, Hooray for compassionate, kinetic foreign adventures that are in the national interest... of someone else.

Who'd have thought a 1st gen Vietnamese immigrant would be saying the modern equivalent of "4 more years!"

Blogger Vox September 12, 2014 7:10 PM  

Furthermore, Vox, you cannot be serious with your mention of Martel. That was a genuine military campaign. This is your governments letting in immigrants WITH THEIR EXPRESS PERMISSION.

Of course I am. Tommy, I very likely know the Koran and the hadiths as well as you do. I am probably more up on the history of Islam than you are.

And you should be supporting me in this, not opposing me. Because if Muslims do not keep to the Dar al-Islam, there will be war in the Dar al-Harb. As you know, that is precisely what its name means. I don't blame Muslims for taking advantage of foolish Western government policies, but then, there is a time to harvest and then there is a time to leave the fields.

Historically speaking, we are approaching the latter from the Muslim perspective. Of course, I don't expect most Muslims to pay me any heed at all, but I think you, for one, understand that I am simply describing what I see. Perhaps I am wrong. But it might serve you well to think about the possibility that I am not.

Anonymous Anonymous September 12, 2014 7:39 PM  

It goes without saying (or should) that if a "Martel" were to appear, one of his first acts, before starting any foreign campaigns, would be to stop his own government's stupidity with regards to Muslim importation.

Anonymous Slowpoke September 12, 2014 9:18 PM  

Charles the hammer. I really hope we see his like again. All of the military genius bestowed to the french people through history and in one man.

Anonymous Frankenhitler September 13, 2014 12:31 AM  

"Obama betrays the Constitution."

Dog bites man.

"Obama follows the Constitution."

Man bites dog.

Anonymous Anonymous September 13, 2014 12:55 AM  

"How can a man this lazy, do this much damage?"

It's called entropy. Civilization is working to maintain order and peace. Without work, there is no order, and thus no peace.He's not necessarily causing damage as much as allowing damage or not fixing things which are damaged ie he's being an African.

This is not something new to people reading this blog, but the potential nightmare of having created enemies all over the world and simultaneously promoted strong ethnomasochism at home could lead to some seriously heinous violence. We, as in Americans with roots here, have been swamped with patient invaders who we treat like guests. Could we look any more weak? We might as well invite foreign military in as well at this point.

On top of an apathetic populace, being invaded, and also now being threatened by foreign military, we're also being protected by our own increasingly Affirmative Action military which is more interested in diversity than strategy and tactics.

If you can't imagine 10 desperately bad scenarios for the US in the not-too-distant future, you're possibly an unknowing victim of a stealth lobotomy. It's just too obvious at this point.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 13, 2014 2:38 AM  

You can't just take your ball and go home. It is far, far to late for that. If you walk away they will come after you.

Sure you can.

If they come after you...slam the effing door in their face.

Blogger Desiderius September 13, 2014 11:56 PM  

Everything Obama does is about dividing the Republican base from the people who write Republican checks.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the NY Times thinks. As long as they define themselves by their Progressivism, they're not in play.

Some days I think Vox and his ilk might have more luck taking over Progressivism, than in making the case against it.

Blogger Desiderius September 14, 2014 12:02 AM  

"If Obama were in his first term, I'd think the NYT was trying to make him look tough and decisive by taking the cautious side. Now, though, it's harder to figure."

A lot of the folks who now work for the NY Times have never lived/worked in an environment that wasn't at least 90% prog. They're less cautious because they see no need for caution. There assumption is that Obama is taking this action because he's overly afraid of the hawks and their potential appeal to voters.

Anonymous Cassandra (of Troy) September 15, 2014 12:30 AM  


When trying to understand Obubo/similar remember that their definitions for terminology differ from the norm, e.g., a foreign enemy isn't necessarily one from outside the country but one whose ideology's different from theirs. Proof of this is how Obubo & co dither, waffle, shuck, & jive when the opponent's external (e.g., Islamic psychos, imported criminals in the U.S.) but will pull themselves together into a unified force & work tirelessly to defeat an internal threat to his/their power, e.g., anti-immivasionists, anti-thug huggers, 'teabaggers', pro-2A people, etc.

Watching who they actually go after is far more important than who they say they're against.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts