Of Terrorists and Kings: Obama vs. ISIS

According to Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and David Nakamura, "President Obama is prepared to use U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of an expanded campaign to defeat the Islamic State and does not believe he needs formal congressional approval to take that action..."

As so it continues... the dismantling of the United States Constitution... clause by clause... section by section... article by article.

I hope you're proud, America. Obama's not the first president to show contempt for our Constitution, but he's certainly the most publicly... openly... contemptuous of the Supreme Law of the Land Chief Executive we've ever had.

Again... via the WP... "Obama discussed his plans at a dinner with a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts this week at the White House and made clear his belief that he has the authority to attack the militant Islamist group on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border to protect U.S national security, multiple people who participated in the discussion said."

In all by official title, Obama is America's King. Our monarch. Our sovereign lord.  He rules - he does not preside. When it comes to the use of the military our President views his authority as no less than total and absolute... unrestrainable by Congress... beyond the bounds of Constitutional limitation.

Continuing to excerpt... "Administration officials have been working in recent days to enlist the support of the nation’s political establishment to help sell their strategy to the American public, which Obama will address in a prime-time speech Wednesday night. The president met with the top four congressional leaders Tuesday, while his aides held briefings on Capitol Hill."

This "support;" shouldn't it be shown via vote? Shouldn't the House and Senate vote to authorize pre-planned, non-emergency-response actions? (Yes! The answer is "yes!" That was a rhetorical question!)

But, folks... don't count on the Republicans - let alone the Democrats - to stand up for the Constitution and demand that Obama do whatever he plans to do legally... via Congressional authorization... with Congress (and Democrats and Republicans in Congress) signing on the dotted line to share the responsibility of sending Americans into combat... into yet another war.

Speaking of... why can't France deal with ISIS? Send in the Foreign Legion! Why can't Germany? Why can't the European Community take their turn at bat and deal with ISIS?

They don't want to spend the money? They don't want to shed the blood? How about this as a response: TOO DAMN BAD!

Folks... think about it... for just one moment between phone calls or Facebooking think about it: WHY CAN'T OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES DEAL WITH ISIS...?!?!

Let Britain sacrifice. Let her entire Commonwealth sacrifice! Let Canada stand in for us!

Think about it, folks... if our "allies" can't handle mere rabble... warlords... "gangs" for all intents and purposes - not a proper military... not the forces of an actual country... then what good would having these "allies" do us if ever the fight were with China... or Russia... or even Iran or North Korea?

THIS IS ABSURD! If not now for our "allies" to carry their weight - then when...?!?!

Let Saudi Arabia unleash not just their security services, but their tanks and jet fighters and bombers and soldiers against ISIS! Let Jordan go to war to destroy ISIS! Egypt... Turkey... both major regional powers armed to the teeth... but supposedly our allies; let them bring ISIS to heel!

Friends... readers... allow me to bring this essay around in another direction; allow me to point to how a compliant, biased, partisan media leads the American People around by the nose:

"A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed that Americans overwhelmingly view the Islamic State as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests and, in a significant shift, widely support airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Seventy-one percent of all Americans say they support airstrikes in Iraq, and 65 percent support strikes in Syria. That is more than double the level of support a year ago for launching airstrikes to punish the Syrian regime."

Remember when it was Iran?

Folks... REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS IRAN...?!?!

How'bout North Korea? Remember when the threat was North Korea? (Actually... the threat still is North Korea... and China... but for the sake of the point I'm making put that aside.)

Putin...??? I thought Put was the big threat?! "Invading" Georgia... "invading" Ukraine...

(*SNORT*)

One foreign "crisis" after the other... and no time for Benghazi... or the IRS scandal... or the literal invasion of America via our open southern border... or... or... or...

Don't you see how you're manipulated and played for the fool? Doesn't this bother you...?!?!

Folks... follow the above link and read the entire Washington Post article as written. Then return to reading the conclusion of this essay.

(*WAITING PATIENTLY*)

From paragraph 1: "President Obama is prepared to use U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of an expanded campaign to defeat the Islamic State..."

"Expanded...???" Please... enlighten me... "expanded" from what...? Helping to create the problem in the first place?

Oh, yes, folks... let's recall... first Obama SUPPORTED the so-called "Arab Spring" which led to the current region-wide chaos... and then he backed the "pre-ISIS" ISIS forces again Assad - a secular dictator who was boxed in regardless and largely harmless... harmless to us!

From paragraph 2: "The move to attack in Syria would represent a remarkable escalation in strategy for Obama, who has sought during his presidency to reduce the U.S. military engagement in the Middle East."

OK. Let's take this in two bites! First.. again with this "escalation." Obama's (and Hillary's) incompetence largely created ISIS! Second... what are these in-the-bag "reporters" babbling about?! Obama inserted us in the Libyan civil war! Obama inserted us in the Syrian civil war! Obama and Hillary actually DID lose Egypt for us for awhile! (Thank God for the Egyptian military!)

Folks... earth to Washington Post... Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton "allied" our country with the Muslim Brotherhood for a time!

From paragraph 4: "...Obama has been reluctant to intervene in Syria’s civil war."

ARE... THESE... PEOPLE... FRIGGIN'... HIGH...?!?! Under President Obama's orders America was shipping weapons (and assisting others to ship weapons) and providing other material, financial, intelligence, and training support to the same anti-Assad forces which became ISIS!

From paragraph 16: "Last year, Obama had decided to authorize limited airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against rebel fighters, but the president ultimately chose to ask Congress to endorse the move with a formal vote. That effort failed, and the United States did not intervene with direct military action."

Umm... folks...??? The truth is most likely that it was the REBELS... not the Assad forces... which employed the chemical weapons.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

So... back to this week's Washington Post-ABC News poll. Is it really any wonder? The media constantly manipulates the American People. They'll lie... they'll refuse to report truth... they'll "market" their point of view (usually liberal... Left... partisan democrat) via what stories they air and how these stories are framed.

This particular Washington Post article? It might as well have been written by the White House Press Secretary.

Think for yourselves, folks; I'm begging you.

I'm not saying that supporters of U.S. military intervention are necessarily wrong. What I'm saying is that there's more to it than the media wants you to consider.

Again... blood and treasure. Even if this time the blood cost may be low... what of the financial costs? Why must it always be America footing the bill? Why can't our "allies" sacrifice in order to help themselves - in order to protect themselves?

Think... think... think... that's all I ask!