Posts Tagged ‘Libya
OK leftists. You got me. I am a racist. I can’t fool you. I’m a conservative, and it’s a well-known, indisputable fact that conservatives are racists. So I’m a racist.
When those “New Black Panthers” stood outside polling places during the 2008 and 2012 elections, holding those batons and threatening people if they did not vote for Obama, that wouldn’t have bothered me if only those Panthers had been white.
I would have stood up and cheered when Obama decided to eliminate the DC Schools initiative that gave opportunities for a superior education to underprivileged children (and vastly improved the future of each child who went through it) if only Obama had lighter skin.
I would absolutely support increasing taxes and fees on small business owners, and weighing them down with mind-numbingly punitive regulations, forcing many to close, some (who could) to move their companies overseas, and many to lay off workers. If only Obama was white.
I would be right there encouraging pregnant women to abort their babies, especially late in their term, and most especially if the abortion failed, refusing to help save those babies who survive. Killing babies would be no problem for me, if only Obama was caucasian.
I’d be excited, even eager, to pay twice as much to fill up my gas tank, and twice as much for groceries and other necessities. Happy to do it. If only Obama wasn’t otherly pigmented.
I would totally support the hiring of more than 40 unelected, unaccountable “czars” to work in the administration, not reporting to the American people, drawing large salaries and benefits from our tax dollars, and imposing their leftist agenda on American people who have no idea what is being done by these “czars”, and no say in their actions. But I don’t, because Obama is black.
And who could have any problem with a 2700+ page health care bill that was written by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, not read by, but voted in by, a liberal Congress. A bill that no one knew the contents of, and Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass before we would find out what was in it. Not me! No need to know what is in a bill that we will all pay for. I have no problem with any of that. No, my problem is the color of Obama’s skin.
Telling the people of Israel they can’t build more apartments for their own citizens would absolutely make sense to me. I’d cheer our interference with the lives of citizens of the state of Israel, telling them how and where they CAN live. Fine with me if done by a white man. But not fine with me if done by a black man.
I would be all for the many back-room deals and executive orders, and all abuses of power that Obama has committed, bypassing Congress, going behind the back of the American people to pass cap-and-trade, making “recess appointments” even though Congress was NOT in recess, and gutting the work requirements of the welfare system by executive order…..and more. Yes, I’d totally have his back on all of it, if only his back was white.
The Justice Department’s gun-running program, in which at least two Americans and who knows how many Mexicans were killed with guns that were furnished by our own government in an attempt to lie about the prevalence of guns that cross the border…..I would have thought that was pure genius if Eric Holder and Obama didn’t have black skin.
Telling American entrepreneurs that they “didn’t build that”, referring to their small businesses, even though he himself had never worked one day in the private sector, would make perfect sense to me. I mean who would know more about building a business than someone who had never built one and never worked in one? If a white man made that declaration, I’d have stood up and clapped for him. But of course, Obama isn’t a white man. So I think it was disgraceful. Not because of the blatant untruth of all of this, but because of Obama’s skin color.
Playing more than 100 games of golf in 3 1/2 years while people are hurting, losing jobs, not able to pay their bills, standing in unemployment lines, and going on welfare would make perfect sense if Obama’s skin was the color of the golf ball.
Also, I would be beyond thrilled to be footing the bill for the Obamas to take many, many extravagant vacations (again, while people are hurting, losing jobs, not able to pay their bills, standing in unemployment lines, and going on welfare) and living the life of the rich and famous using our money for “rich” part…..if their skin was white.
And the administration leaking classified information about covert operations, particularly the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, even when specifically asked by the military NOT to leak it, would have been wonderful if we had a white President. Because the color of Obama’s skin is what really bothered me about the 30 Americans and 22 Navy SEALS who died when the helicopter they were in was shot down in Afghanistan. Clearly, the important part of that story is that Obama is a black man and thus, I am upset about this loss. It wouldn’t even be worth mentioning if we had a white President.
President Obama has only attended 38% of his daily intelligence briefings in the past year, and he skipped them for 5 days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. And on that anniversary, terrorists in Libya attacked our embassy there, murdered the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs working under the State Department, and information management officer Sean Smith. The White House, the director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, and countless others involved in decision-making and dissemination of the “story” of what happened in Libya, continue to lie, obfuscate, change their story, point fingers, and cover their own backs in order to shirk responsibility for this terrorist attack. They also continue to avoid using the words “terrorist attack”. This attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya is an attack on the United States of America, as all U.S. Consulates are considered sovereign U.S. territory. However, the color of Barack Obama’s skin is what makes a terrorist attack on the United States of America an abomination for me. Not the murder of innocent Americans who served our country, not the fact that their requests for protection went unheeded, not the lying by the president, not the lying to the American people by the media, and not the scrambling by everyone involved to cover their own backsides. No, none of that would be worth mentioning, if our president was a white man. Because never in our history have we ever been bothered by an attack on American soil as long as our president was a white man. This is the first time in recorded history that anyone objected to such violence, and so naturally the reason for objection is the color of Barack Obama’s skin. What else could it be?
During the 2008 campaign, Obama told us much of what he intended to do “for” (actually, TO) our country. “I think when you spread the wealth around, everybody benefits”, “under my plan for cap and trade, electricity will necessarily skyrocket”. He told us he was against drilling for oil in the United States, meaning we would continue our dependence on foreign oil. He told us the rich were “not paying their fair share”, and even though his definition of “the rich” changed from speech to speech, and no one has ever defined “fair share” to be paid by those who already pay the lion’s share of taxes in America, his plans for increasing taxes were clear. All of this and more is completely against everything I believe. Despite this, I would have been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama but for the color of his skin.
Barack Obama was raised by a white mother, and later by his white grandparents, who financed his education in an exclusive private school in Hawaii. After that childhood of nurturing, support, and love from his white mother and his white grandparents, he chose to be identified as only black, and foment hatred and discontent against white people. After all, given this horrible mistreatment and deprivation by his white family, one can understand why he would feel hatred and resentment toward whites. You know the old saying: “No good deed goes unpunished.”
I think all of us conservative racists would agree that we would be 100% behind a white guy who had been a state senator for one term, [having won that election by exposing private divorce records (illegal?) on his opponent;], resigning that seat to serve one term as a U.S. Senator, had no experience running a business or a payroll, never worked in the private sector, refused to release his education records, and voted “present” more than 100 times during his time in the Illinois state senate. This would seem the perfect qualifications to become the leader of the free world, if this candidate had white skin. Of course, being a the racist that I am, I felt Obama was totally unqualified for the job based on …… his skin color.
I heard many “man in the street” types of interviews during the course of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In most of those, interviewees were asked who they were voting for, and what issues most concerned them. Most of them had absolutely no idea where Obama stood on the issues. So when asked why they were voting for Obama, a large percentage of them replied “because he’s not white”. That isn’t racist, however. Voting FOR a man because he is black is not racism. Voting against a black man whose plans are to destroy America is clearly racism. It’s important that we all understand that and admit that we conservatives are nothing but racists.
In this wide-ranging C-SPAN interview, Lt. Col. Allen West (R-Florida, and a future President of the United States, if America should be so lucky) points out that Barack Hussein (not a Muslim) Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act, which requires the president to get the approval of Congress for any military operation that lasts more than 60 days. If Congress doesn’t give approval, the Act requires that the military operation stop immediately.
From an editorial in the Denver Post:
This choice is not merely a preference expressed by Congress in 1973. It’s the law of the land — a law clearly in accord with the U.S. Constitution, which bestows war-making powers on Congress, not the president.
And yet our military operations in Libya continue without any congressional authorization, in defiance of that mandate.
Moreover, Congress appears unwilling to confront the president over this neglect of the War Powers act. As The Washington Post reported Thursday, “Republican and Democratic leaders, who agree on little else, seem united in their desire to not say much about the War Powers Resolution.”
This story broke yesterday afternoon and it appears to be BIG…although the White House is denying it (of course). Several government officials let it slip that Obama had signed an order at least 2-3 weeks ago to “support” the anti-Gaddafi rebels. Wasn’t that before we “publicly” entered into the kinetic-military-action?
( Reuters ) Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”
The CIA declined comment.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi’s opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to “ultimately step down” from power. He spoke of applying “steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means” to force Gaddafi out.
Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. “It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point,” he told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.
In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted to reporters that no decision had yet been taken.
U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say neither Gaddafi’s forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, now appear able to make decisive gains.
While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi’s military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.
Hmmm…who are these rebels?
I hope we’re not giving weapons to Al-Qaeda.
I thought it would be fun to have an open thread dedicated to Obama’s speech on our involvement in Libya. All the major networks are supposed to carry it at 7:30pm (EST)…preempting regularly scheduled programming. I can’t wait to see how he digs himself out of this mess…..he has to appease his far left base without losing any points with the independents. Frankly, I don’t think it can be done.
Let’s face it…..he ain’t Houdini.
To make it more interesting….let’s play a little numbers game.
1. How many times do you hear him use the phrase “Let me be clear” ?
2. How many times do you hear him use the phrase “Make no mistake” ?
3. Does he ever use the word “War” ?
What’s your opinion of his speech? How’d he do?
Yesterday the White House released the following statement….
WASHINGTON–On Monday, March 28 at 7:30PM ET, the President will deliver an address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC to update the American people on the situation in Libya, including the actions we’ve taken with allies and partners to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar Qaddafi, the transition to NATO command and control, and our policy going forward.
The speech will be pooled for TV and open to correspondents. More details, including press credentialing information, will be released as they become available
Didn’t we start launching missiles last Saturday? Obama has been feeling the heat all week from both Republicans and Democrats on why he didn’t come to them (Congress) first before he involved the US in this war. The far left has made it very clear that they are not happy with him.
Many are asking…who’s in charge of this attack on Libya? In the good old days….the US would take the lead and everything would be handled ( like Desert Storm in the early 90’s). Mission accomplished. Period.
(NewsMax) Confusion reigned Monday among U.N. and NATO nations about who’s in charge of the multi-country attack against Libya, even as an international coalition continued air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
President Barack Obama’s White House hasn’t definitively addressed that essential issue about an operation that has cost the United States well more than $100 million, and is increasingly rapidly. Other questions looming:
- Are the United States and its allies attacking Libya to save the country’s citizens from slaughter at the hands of their leader Gadhafi, as the U.N. resolution endorsing the enforcement of the no-fly zone called for, or are they ultimately trying to push him out of power? That oust-Gadhafi question resonates with echoes of previous statements from both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the ruthless dictator must go. And how do those messages mesh with a top admiral’s statement that Gadhafi could remain in power?
- How, and when, will the United States hand off leadership of the military attack to other countries?
- What is the potential for this to become a U.S. police action and/or extended involvement like that in Iraq and Afghanistan?
This is so typical of this mushy-gushy-wishy-washy-which way is the wind blowing administration. So…to make everyone happy…Obama has decided to make a speech so that we (the little people) can understand what he ( The Great One) has done.
WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama will give a speech to the nation Monday explaining his decision-making on the Libyan war.
The timing comes as some lawmakers of both major parties have complained that Obama has not sought their input about the U.S. role in the war or explained with enough clarity about the U.S. goals and exit strategy.
U.S.-led forces began launching missile strikes last Saturday against embattled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses to prevent him from attacking his own people.
It’s no real surprise that Obama didn’t follow the War Powers Clause in our Constitution.
After all….why should a global citizen be bothered with the approval of Congress?
Yep…I said France takes the lead. They are the first country to recognize Libya’s new rebel leadership. Where is the United States? Playing golf?
(from France24) In a major diplomatic victory for the Libyan opposition, France has become the first country to formally recognise Libya’s rebel leadership, pledging to exchange ambassadors between Paris and the Libyan opposition stronghold of Benghazi.
France became the first country to formally recognize the Libyan opposition — the Interim Transitional National Council — as legitimate representatives of the Libyan people on Thursday, pledging to exchange ambassadors with the country’s newly created transitional council in a major diplomatic victory for the Libyan opposition.
The announcement followed a meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and two representatives of Libya’s Interim Transitional National Council in Paris Thursday
Speaking to reporters at the Elysée presidential palace in Paris, Ali al Issawi, a former Libyan ambassador to India who quit his post last month, announced that, “France recognises the National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
“There will be an exchange of ambassadors between Paris and Benghazi,” he added, referring to the eastern Libyan city that has emerged as a rebel stronghold over the past few weeks.
The recognition comes as European Union foreign ministers meet in Brussels Thursday and defense ministers of NATO’s 28 member states also gathered in the Belgian capital to consider the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
Ahead of the Brussels meeting, AFP reported that Sarkozy would propose “targeted airstrikes” in Libya as a way to end the violence.
Go France Go
I think the better question would be “when will Libya fall?” It appears that the anti-government protests have moved from the small outlying cities to Tripoli causing the police (and Qaddafi) to panic and go into protective mode. Hundreds have been killed during the protests. Libya has been fighting back much harder than Tunisia and Egypt but the big question is….how long will the police and military continue to back Qaddafi? As soon as that tide turns…Libya will fall.
Libyan protesters celebrated in the streets of Benghazi on Monday, claiming control of the country’s second largest city after bloody fighting, and anti-government unrest spread to the capital with clashes in Tripoli’s main square for the first time. Muammar al-Qaddafi’s son vowed that his father and security forces would fight “until the last bullet.”
Even as Seif al-Islam Qaddafi spoke on state TV Sunday night, clashes were raging in and around Tripoli’s central Green Square, lasting until dawn Monday, witnesses said. They reported snipers opening fire on crowds trying to seize the square, and Qaddafi supporters speeding through in vehicles, shooting and running over protesters. Before dawn, protesters took over the offices of two of the multiple state-run satellite news channels, witnesses said.
A major government building in the capital was on fire Monday morning, a Reuters reporter said. The building is where the General People’s Congress, or parliament, meets when it is in session in Tripoli.
Smoke was also rising from two sites in Tripoli where a police station and a security forces bases are located, said Rehab, a lawyer watching from the roof of her home.
The city on Monday was shut down and streets empty, with schools, government offices and most shops closed except a few bakeries serving residents hunkered down in their houses, she said, speaking on condition she be identified only by her first name.
The protests and violence were the heaviest yet in the capital of 2 million people, a sign of how unrest was spreading after six days of demonstrations in eastern cities demanding the end of the elder Qaddafi’s rule.
Qaddafi’s regime has unleashed the bloodiest crackdown of any Arab country against the wave of protests sweeping the region, which toppled the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia. More than 200 have been killed in Libya, according to medical officials, human rights groups and exiled dissidents.
The spiraling turmoil in Libya, an OPEC country that is a significant oil supplier to Europe, was raising international alarm. Oil prices jumped $1.67 to nearly $88 a barrel Monday amid investor concern over the turmoil.
EU foreign ministers said on Monday they will prepare for the possible evacuation of European citizens from Libya. European firms have taken the lead in developing Libya’s oil industry. About 500 Libyans attacked a South Korean-run construction site near Tripoli on Monday, triggering a clash that left five people injured, Seoul’s Foreign Ministry said.
The Internet has been largely shut down, residents can no longer make international calls from land lines and journalists cannot work freely, but eyewitness reports trickling out of the country suggested that protesters were fighting back more forcefully against the Middle East’s longest-serving leader. Most witnesses and residents spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.
It won’t be long.