Quote:
Bushocracy Returns to the White House OR... It Never Truly Left. So much for your Hope and Change!

Larry Elder

Anti-Iraq War Bush-Haters Squirm to Justify Libya

Email Larry Elder | Columnist's Archive

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in December 2007.

What a difference a change of job title makes.

"Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates three weeks before President Obama ordered a no-fly zone over -- and other military action against -- Libya.

Like many anti-Iraq War/Bush-is-a-warmonger critics, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the Libyan action. Bush-hater Rachel Maddow of MSNBC rationalized that unlike the bloodthirsty President George W. Bush, you see, Obama ordered the military into action under a different "narrative" -- that is, reluctantly and without zeal. Understand?

The non-unilateralist Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, unlike Bush, sought no congressional war resolution. Obama, therefore, ordered military action against Libya "unilaterally" -- without the congressional approval that he once argued the Constitution demanded.

As Obama further explained in his December 2007 statement, "In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." So a president, according to Obama, does not need congressional authority -- provided the action involves "self-defense" or "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

What is the "actual or imminent threat" to America posed by Libya?

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, spooked bleep-less after our invasion of Iraq, surrendered his WMD. The dictator admitted Libya's complicity in the bombing of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie and paid financial settlements -- after which the U.S. removed Libya from the list of terror-sponsoring states. The U.S. imports less than 1 percent of its oil from that country. What threat to national security?

Fast-forward to March 2011. Rebels threaten to topple Gadhafi's brutal regime. But the dictator fights back, and unless stopped by outsiders, his military appears poised to put down and slaughter the rebels. Enter Obama. "We cannot stand idly by," he said, "when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Obama thus approves this act of war -- for (SET ITAL) humanitarian (END ITAL) purposes.

But Iraq's Saddam Hussein created a far greater humanitarian nightmare. "The Butcher of Baghdad" slaughtered, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- far more people than were killed in Bosnia and Kosovo, where President Clinton ordered military force for humanitarian reasons. Yet, when weapons hunters found no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the dwindling number of pro-war Democrats turned against the war -- never mind the sickening sight of thousands of Iraqis found in shallow graves.

If U.S. foreign policy dictates intervention during humanitarian crises, why stop with Libya? Why (SET ITAL) start (END ITAL) with Libya?

The list of brutal thug leaders is long. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives under un-free, often brutally repressive, governments, and another billion or so people have only partial freedom.

Humanitarian in-harm's-way deployment of the military is treacherous and unpredictable. Consider Somalia ("Black Hawk Down" Battle of Mogadishu in 1993); Lebanon (241 servicemen, mostly Marines, killed when terrorists blew up their barracks in 1983); and Bosnia/Kosovo (President Clinton promised troops out by Christmas 1995).

The purpose of the military is to act on behalf of our national security. We are not the world's hall monitor. Bush-hating Iraq War critics used to say stuff like that -- along with "war is not the answer."

Now, let's revisit the reasons for the -- as pre-President Obama called it -- "stupid" war.

Obama, like virtually everyone else, assumed Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD while actively pursing a nuclear capability. President Bush sought and obtained congressional authorization. He called Saddam's Iraq a "grave and gathering threat" to our (SET ITAL) national security. (END ITAL)

Ninety percent of Americans, in the dark days following Sept. 11, 2001, expected another attack within a year -- except perhaps this time with chemical or biological weapons. From the "oil-for-food" program, Saddam stole money, possibly re-routing it to terrorists. He financially rewarded families of homicide bombers. We learned, following the Persian Gulf War, that he was much closer to achieving nuclear capability than previously thought. Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors sent in to verify the promised dismantling and destruction of the weapons.

That Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, having used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people, was not in dispute. All 16 U.S. intelligences agencies thought so "with the highest probability." France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel -- and even Saddam's own generals -- assumed Iraq possessed WMD. Even U.N. weapons inspector and Iraq War critic Hans Blix thought Saddam likely possessed these weapons. As Blix admitted at a 2004 University of Berkeley forum: 'I'm not here to have gut feelings. But yes, in December 2002 (three months before the invasion) I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.'"

Call Libya the Obama doctrine: non-national security, non-congressionally approved military attacks are perfectly legitimate for humanitarian reasons. Except not for Iraq under President George W. Bush -- who awaits his apology.

Saudi Tanks Roll Where Obama Fears To Tread

Quote:

Jim, Whether you hate Bush or love him he went to war with the approval of Congress and the Senate. B Hussein as usual thinks he's above the law and can do what ever he feels like. His actions weren't approved by Congress therefore are unconstitutional. The fact that MSM is finding excuses for the great pretender is another dose of their hypocrisy and biased reporting. I have no doubt that history will not give B Hussein high marks in anything aside from his undying support of Radical Islamic regimes, terrorist organizations and the downfall of the United States.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
Bushocracy Returns to the White House OR... It Never Truly Left. So much for your Hope and Change!

Larry Elder

Anti-Iraq War Bush-Haters Squirm to Justify Libya

Email Larry Elder | Columnist's Archive

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in December 2007.

What a difference a change of job title makes.

"Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates three weeks before President Obama ordered a no-fly zone over -- and other military action against -- Libya.

Like many anti-Iraq War/Bush-is-a-warmonger critics, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the Libyan action. Bush-hater Rachel Maddow of MSNBC rationalized that unlike the bloodthirsty President George W. Bush, you see, Obama ordered the military into action under a different "narrative" -- that is, reluctantly and without zeal. Understand?

The non-unilateralist Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, unlike Bush, sought no congressional war resolution. Obama, therefore, ordered military action against Libya "unilaterally" -- without the congressional approval that he once argued the Constitution demanded.

As Obama further explained in his December 2007 statement, "In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." So a president, according to Obama, does not need congressional authority -- provided the action involves "self-defense" or "stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

What is the "actual or imminent threat" to America posed by Libya?

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, spooked bleep-less after our invasion of Iraq, surrendered his WMD. The dictator admitted Libya's complicity in the bombing of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie and paid financial settlements -- after which the U.S. removed Libya from the list of terror-sponsoring states. The U.S. imports less than 1 percent of its oil from that country. What threat to national security?

Fast-forward to March 2011. Rebels threaten to topple Gadhafi's brutal regime. But the dictator fights back, and unless stopped by outsiders, his military appears poised to put down and slaughter the rebels. Enter Obama. "We cannot stand idly by," he said, "when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Obama thus approves this act of war -- for (SET ITAL) humanitarian (END ITAL) purposes.

But Iraq's Saddam Hussein created a far greater humanitarian nightmare. "The Butcher of Baghdad" slaughtered, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- far more people than were killed in Bosnia and Kosovo, where President Clinton ordered military force for humanitarian reasons. Yet, when weapons hunters found no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the dwindling number of pro-war Democrats turned against the war -- never mind the sickening sight of thousands of Iraqis found in shallow graves.

If U.S. foreign policy dictates intervention during humanitarian crises, why stop with Libya? Why (SET ITAL) start (END ITAL) with Libya?

The list of brutal thug leaders is long. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives under un-free, often brutally repressive, governments, and another billion or so people have only partial freedom.

Humanitarian in-harm's-way deployment of the military is treacherous and unpredictable. Consider Somalia ("Black Hawk Down" Battle of Mogadishu in 1993); Lebanon (241 servicemen, mostly Marines, killed when terrorists blew up their barracks in 1983); and Bosnia/Kosovo (President Clinton promised troops out by Christmas 1995).

The purpose of the military is to act on behalf of our national security. We are not the world's hall monitor. Bush-hating Iraq War critics used to say stuff like that -- along with "war is not the answer."

Now, let's revisit the reasons for the -- as pre-President Obama called it -- "stupid" war.

Obama, like virtually everyone else, assumed Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD while actively pursing a nuclear capability. President Bush sought and obtained congressional authorization. He called Saddam's Iraq a "grave and gathering threat" to our (SET ITAL) national security. (END ITAL)

Ninety percent of Americans, in the dark days following Sept. 11, 2001, expected another attack within a year -- except perhaps this time with chemical or biological weapons. From the "oil-for-food" program, Saddam stole money, possibly re-routing it to terrorists. He financially rewarded families of homicide bombers. We learned, following the Persian Gulf War, that he was much closer to achieving nuclear capability than previously thought. Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors sent in to verify the promised dismantling and destruction of the weapons.

That Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, having used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people, was not in dispute. All 16 U.S. intelligences agencies thought so "with the highest probability." France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel -- and even Saddam's own generals -- assumed Iraq possessed WMD. Even U.N. weapons inspector and Iraq War critic Hans Blix thought Saddam likely possessed these weapons. As Blix admitted at a 2004 University of Berkeley forum: 'I'm not here to have gut feelings. But yes, in December 2002 (three months before the invasion) I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.'"

Call Libya the Obama doctrine: non-national security, non-congressionally approved military attacks are perfectly legitimate for humanitarian reasons. Except not for Iraq under President George W. Bush -- who awaits his apology.

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
April 3, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

A man who had access to the White House on at least four occasions and a former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), detailed a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

Steven Lerner, the “man with access,” thinks it’s a cool way to redistribute wealth and make changes in government. He spoke at a closed session at a Pace University Forum last weekend.

As many readers know, Glenn Beck got a transcript of that meeting and disclosed that Lerner, using community organization groups, planned a stealth attack to destroy J.P. Morgan Chase, put the stock market in ruins, and weaken the grip elitists have on America’s economy. That’s what Lerner said was the objective.

Lerner admits that unions and community organizations are all but dead. He says $17 trillion has been stolen from the middle class and the only way to get it back is through the redistribution of wealth. That is his stated goal. He plans to organize a mass attack on mortgage loans, among other things. He says this can destabilize the stock market – perhaps bring on a crash – and when people stop making mortgage payments, they get to live in their homes for a year, rent free – well, sometimes they do. Lerner says if he can get enough people to do this, it will overwhelm the system which will fall down. He’s right. That has a grain of truth. He doesn’t mention the horrible credit rating those who stop paying their mortgage will have for life, but… hey, it’s for the “greater good.”

He says social chaos and the destruction of the financial system will isolate what is rapidly becoming an American oligarchy (a government in which power is vested in few people) of elitists and, if the banks and the stock market fail, it will cause them to lose access to the only thing that gives them power: Money. This also holds a partial grain of truth.

Maybe you’ve heard of the Clowen - Piven Report. It’s a “Strategy to End Poverty” which also supports the Democrat Party by supporting liberal progressive programs. Attending Lerner’s meeting was Frances Fox Piven. It’s her strategy to create chaos that results in insurrection and an ungovernable system: financial, legal, and social. The underpinning of Clowen - Piven is to destabilize our banking system. Gee! What a coincidence! Lerner wants that, too!

Lerner’s plan calls for a demonstration on Wall Street in May and particularly targets J.P. Morgan Chase. He wants protests at the bank’s Annual Shareholder meeting. After that, he wants people to stop paying their mortgages. He says if he can bring Chase down, the entire banking system will collapse.

He specifically says such an attack will benefit the labor unions but the unions can’t be seen taking part in and organizing it. Instead, it must be run by community organizations.

He promises if we get rid of elitists, the poor and the middle classes will be in clover. Everything will be as it should (in a good, communist government – he leaves that part off). He says that we have an entire economy built on debt – and he’s right. What we have in America today is not capitalism. It is debt capitalism and it was carefully planned as part of America’s demise.

This article may sound like it’s about Steven Lerner, but this article is about you. It’s about the need for your common sense to prevail as unions come closer and closer to failure and as community organizers get weaker and more desperate. As Tea Party Groups become stronger, the others fight for their existence. We saw that in “a little piece of Madison, WI.”

How can you learn to identify misinformation and disinformation when it’s being fed to you?

Lerner says: “We are not broke; there is plenty of money.” He says: “They have money – we need to get it back.” Lerner is accurate when he says the thing elitists fear most is disruption and uncertainty. What he doesn’t tell you is what the middle class and those living in poverty most fear. Give it a moment’s thought. What happens when chaos rules?

The streets are unsafe – and most people fear placing their children in danger. Not having enough food is another fear – a logical one. How do you get safely to and from the supermarket? Better yet, how do you get safely from the supermarket’s front door to your car carrying groceries? When people don’t have enough to eat, violence accompanies chaos. Not being able to get warm or cool or have access to clean water are other fears. Public utilities and services may become part of the attack against society.

Steven Lerner is formerly of SEIU – he was accused of stealing large sums of money from SEIU and is no longer employed by them. His message: “We must destroy the financial system that supports the elitists… and if we get rid of J.P. Morgan Chase, the rest will follow…” His meaning: “We must get rid of the middle class so the two class system needed by an oligarchy can thrive.” That’s what your questions and answers of this kind of rhetoric should tell you.

This case study is a perfect example of how the Marxist theory of using a grain of truth and building lies around it fools a naive public into believing what is said. Not only does the plan not achieve the promise, it achieves victory for the group the public thought it was fighting: the elitists.

Offer the public something it wants, tell them what you are doing will achieve that objective, and implement a plan that will achieve precisely the opposite of what the public wants. Liberals have for years put forth class warfare in every way they could. “Let’s find a way to get rid of ‘them’ because ‘they’ aren’t part of ‘us’.” And the moment any citizen of this nation allows their definition of another citizen to be anything but “American,” a “they” and an “us” is created.

The public has a responsibility to ask common sense questions before biting off more than it can chew – like electing an inexperienced man to the Presidency of the Greatest Nation on Earth because he says he wants “change” and then being angry at him because he’s an empty suit – which was apparent to anyone who bothered to look.

As citizens, we must all employ common sense.

Common Sense Rule #1: You cannot achieve one thing by doing something that promotes its opposite.

Common Sense Rule #2: Ask questions. Ask tough questions. Ask the right questions. For example (in the Lerner case, above):

Who is more likely to have their wealth spread in bank accounts around the world? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? The obvious answer: The very wealthy.

Another example:

Who is better able to afford to live through a total breakdown of America’s economic system? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? Answer: The very wealthy.

Yet another:

Who has the money to leave one country that is thrown into the chaos of economic breakdown – the violence, the hunger, the lack of medical care – and temporarily move to another country? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? Answer: The very wealthy.

And another:

What makes an oligarchic state (the rule of a few over the many) possible? Answer: A two-class system – the poor and the wealthy. It needs to get rid of the middle class.

And, finally:

What will the result be if what Steven Lerner recommends is implemented? Answer: A two-class system consisting of the poor and the wealthy.

So who won this ballgame? This middle class that would no longer exist certainly didn’t win. The losers let their class envy make them patsies in the games big boys play. They let themselves be led to the slaughter by a Judas Goat. Society will be structured to accommodate an oligarchy if Steve Lerner’s plan succeeds.

Another example of misinformation:

A report was released on March 28th showing consumer spending increased in February by more than 7 percent.

If you’ve been watching the unemployment rate (which is higher than “they” say) or the mortgage foreclosure mess, or the rate of inflation (which is higher than they say), it’s doubtful you’ll believe consumer confidence motivated the spending increases. You’ll ask some intelligent citizen questions about why consumers spent more money last month.

For example: Did the cost of a product we require every day increase last month? Could that increased cost have jacked-up consumer spending? If you ask that question and remember how much more you’re paying for a gallon of gas in February, go to the head of the class! Food costs also inflated. More than half of increased spending was caused by higher prices on needed daily products: gasoline and food. We consumers are going further into debt, just as the government wants, but not because we are confident about our economy – so you can put that piece of misinformation – that the economy is moving forward – to bed. Statistics also say pending home sales increased a bit over 2% from January – but if you seek the truth it can be found in the statistics. Pending home sales are still down 9.3% from a year ago. So, is the economy improving as they say it is? Or, is this a sales job?

There is no doubt a war of misinformation/disinformation is promoting class warfare designed to divide and conquer – get Americans to stand against other Americans. That ought to tell you for what reason or objective the war is being fought: For your mind and the support it gives them if they can make you part of their coalition. You’re just a number to them. Steven Lerner wouldn’t be making plans to destroy the economy if he could do it without enlisting the help of an uninformed citizenry. So prepare yourself. Ask questions!

What you’re seeing and hearing is hype… smoke and mirrors provided by snake oil salesmen. People are desperate and want to believe anything that sounds like a way out.

There’s only one way out: Truth. Find it.

© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and one work of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008).

Web site: http://marilynwrites@blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com