Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Objectives of Tsar Vladimir I

by Edward Posted: Friday, 2/6/2015

Objectives Of Tsar Vladimir I   <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama seems to be completely mystified by the foreign policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That Mr. Obama should be confused by one of the simplest foreign policies imaginable is a wonder to behold.  Let us review recent events.

1.  In Feb 2014, Mr. Putin ordered Russian Special Forces units to infiltrate eastern Ukraine, occupying several key towns, posing as (what else) “freedom fighters”, ostensibly to protect people of Russian heritage in Ukraine from discrimination by the Ukrainian government.  Only later did Mr. Putin admit that the entire episode was in fact a covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.  The US and many other nations reacted by imposing economic sanctions on Russia, a fact which has thus far not fazed Mr. Putin or his administration.  At this writing, the battle for eastern Ukraine continues, with Ukrainians doing their best to defeat a combination force of Russian military and domestic Russian separatists.

2.  In Mar 2014 Mr. Putin ordered subversive elements of the Russian military to simply show up and occupy the Supreme Council of Crimea, install a new government led by a Russian puppet (Aksyonov), order a declaration of independence followed by a fraudulent election, with the forgone result that Crimea would re-join Russia.  Crimea is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Moscow, divided into the “Republic of Crimea” and the “Free City of Sevastopol”.  Crimea had formerly been part of Ukraine since 1954, when the Soviet Union granted it to Ukraine (also then a slave state under the USSR).

3. Mr. Putin has been unwavering in his support forIran’s nuclear program.  His policy is partly due, I think, to animosity towards Israel and a desire to obtain indirect power over Iran in order to gain access to warm-water ports. Iran should be careful not to get too cozy with Russia: it was not that long ago (1880 – 1915) when Russia controlled all of northern Iran, until Russia was distracted by the Revolution of 1917, and had to retreat.  But Russia occupied Iran again just after World War II, after which it was forced out only by U. S.pressure in 1948.

Mr. Putin certainly knows his Russian history, and appears to renewing the ancient Tsarist and Communist policy after a 20-year hiatus following the fall of the U. S. S. R.  It is based on territorial opportunism, exploiting every weakness as it comes along.  As Senator Robert Taft [1] observed in 1951:

For two hundred years Russia has been moving forward by going into soft spots.  That has been its policy.  Wherever it thought it could grab something and get away with it, it has done so.  Here was a place [S. Korea] which the Secretary of State [Dean Acheson] and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee [Senator Tom Connolly, D-TX] gave the Russians every reason to consider a soft spot.

So what is next for Tsar Vladimir?  That depends on where the next soft spot is.  Now that he has divided the Ukraine, possibly it is time to look westward, especially to Poland.  If there was ever a time for the people of that nation to arm and train it is now, before the Russians walk in and occupy it as they did in east Ukraine and Crimea.  No one doubts the patriotism and bravery of the Polish people, but one must question their government’s sanity by not preparing immediately.  If that day comes, the Polish people will be left to their own devices.  America (under Obama) will file a complaint with the United Nations, Germany and France will call a press conference, and the ever-admirable British will do all they can, but it won’t be enough.

[1] Robert A. Taft, A Foreign Policy for Americans, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1951, p. 106

 

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

On the President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws

by Edward Posted: Friday, 12/26/2014

PresidentsDutyToFaithfullyExecuteLaws  <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama recently issued an Executive Order that exempted many illegal aliens from deportation if they met certain nebulous requirements.  It is alleged by His Most High Incompetence that this order would affect only about 5 million people, but there is no reason to believe that figure in favor of any higher number.  Many have claimed that Obama’s particular Executive Order is illegal, since, by waiving a part of immigration law, he is failing to faithfully execute the laws per his oath of office as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  So far, 25 states have joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the order overruled, and the next Congress has claimed it will do the same (probably by endorsing and expanding it).

But the real question is: where does a President and his Justice Department toadies get the arrogance to ignore their oaths of office?  That has already been answered by St. George Tucker, an early expositor of the Constitution [1] in a series of essays published in 1803:

Lastly; it is the duty of the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and, in the words of his oath, “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”

The obligation of oaths upon the consciences of ambitious men has always been very slight, as the general history of mankind but too clearly evinces.  Among the Romans, indeed, they were held in great sanctity during the purer ages of the republic, but began to be disregarded as the nation approached to a state of debasement, that fitted them for slavery.  Among Christian princes, they seem only to have been calculated for the worst, instead of the best purposes: monarchs having long exercised, and seeming to claim, not less than the successors of St. Peter, a kind of dispensing power on this subject, in all cases affecting themselves.  A due sense of religion must not only be wanting in such cases, but the moral character of the man must be wholly debased, and corrupted.  Whilst these remain unsullied, in the United States, oaths may operate in support of the constitution they have adopted, but no longer.  After that period an oath of office will serve merely to designate its duties, and not to secure the faithful performance of them; or, to restrain those who are disposed to violate them.

Why does this kind of arrogance prevail?  Because the officers of the government have adopted corruption and immorality as their mode of operation: what matters to them is the political expediency of the moment without regard for what is right, wrong, or important in the long term.  It is not actually a legal matter: no court ruling will affect the basic corruption.  Left unchecked, this level of corruption will eventually cause the republic to degenerate into tyranny.  Montesquieu [2] notes:

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

We can only hope that the American people will be more discerning at the next presidential election.

[1] St. George Tucker, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, p. 282, (1999).  The original was published in 1803.

[2] Charles de Secondat, (Baron de Montesquieu), The Spirit of Laws, Book VIII, chapter 12.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

The Islamic State Practices True Islam

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 9/28/2014

The Islamic State Practices True Islam  <– PDF version

We have all heard of the atrocities currently being committed by the Islamic State (IS), also called the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) — starving of children, mass murders, forcing people into the wilderness by the thousands, summary executions of enemy soldiers, public beheadings of Arab children and Western journalists, etc.  IS has demanded that all within the territory they control who are not with them is against them.  Their demands are simple: convert, pay tribute to IS, or be killed.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama has responded by authorizing a limited series of airstrikes against ISIS, motivated mostly by public opinion than coherent policy.  Allegedly, the U. S. is being assisted by a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan) in conducting these air missions.  The military experts inform us that this is neither a rational nor a victory-oriented strategy, but never mind that, Mr. Obama can now convincingly emulate President George W. Bush as a warrior upon “radical Islam”.  Both presidents have said that they believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that no true religion would conduct itself the way IS has done.  They are both wrong: Islam is the religion of peace only when they are in a tiny minority; as soon as they become a large minority or a majority, the true nature of Islam comes out: to spread the faith by force.

As proof, we need look no further than the policy of Abu Bekr, the first elected Caliph after the death of the Prophet Mohammed; he served as Caliph from the death of Mohammed in 632 until his assassination by poisoning in 634.  Abu Bekr was the father of Mohammed’s favorite wife, and was elected over Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali and an early dutiful convert, Omar.  The historian Henry Coppee has furnished us with the transition from Mohammed to Abu Bekr [1]:

“The venerable chief entered at once and with ardor upon the plans proposed by Mohammed.  He summoned the nation to arms, and after some desultory, or rather experimental efforts, he dispatched a large force to wrest Syria from the weak grasp of Heraclius.  His troops were full of ardor; the new war which was undertaken to propagate the faith would also enrich the faithful, by securing, as a result of victory, the costly spoils of the Lower Empire, of which the marvelous accounts hardly exceeded the marvelous reality.”

He followed the dictates of the Koran as laid out by the Prophet Mohammed [2]:

“If you be slain or die in defense of the religion of God, verily, pardon from God and mercy are better that what they heap together of worldly riches; and if you die or be slain, verily, unto God you shall be gathered.”

Here are Abu Bekr’s instructions to the army [3]:

“If God should give you the victory, do not abuse your advantages; and beware how you stain your swords in the blood of him who yields; neither touch the children, the women, or the infirm old men, that you may find among your enemies.  In your progress through the enemy’s lands, cut down no palms, or fruit trees, destroy not the products of the earth; ravage no fields; burn no dwellings; from the stores of your enemy, take only what you need for your own wants.  Let no destruction be made without necessity, but occupy the cities of the enemy, and if there be any that may serve as an asylum to your adversaries, them do you destroy.  Treat the prisoner, and him who renders himself to your mercy, with pity, as God shall do to you in your need, but trample down the proud and rebellious; nor fail to crush all who have broken the conditions imposed on them.  Let there be no perfidy or falsehood in your treaties with your enemies; be faithful in all things, proving yourselves upright and noble, and maintaining your word and promise truly.  Do not disturb the quiet of the monk or hermit, and destroy not their abodes, but inflict the rigors of death on all who shall refuse the conditions you would impose on them.”

What were these conditions?  Very simple, identical to what the new IS has proclaimed: “convert to Islam, pay tribute, or die by the sword.”

The new Islamic State, led by Abu Bekr al-Baghdadi (pseudonym or coincidence?), is in fact practicing the true form of Islam and spreading it in the way authorized by Mohammed and the successor caliphs.  This explains why every nation with a large Islamic population requires a government of tyranny and dictatorship: first, individual freedom is prohibited by Islam; and secondly, without a government of absolute powers, the nation would degenerate into perpetual chaos.  It is exactly as we have seen in Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Iraq in recent years as soon as the secular dictators and absolute monarchs were overthrown or challenged.  It is a way of life in the weakly-governed Islamic portions of the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.  Why would our government try to deceive us into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace”?  Are they naive and gullible, or something worse?

[1]  Henry Coppee, The History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, Vol. 1, p. 44,  Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1881

[2]  The Koran, chap. 3.

[3]  ibid., Coppee, Vol. 1, pp. 46, 47

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in terrorism, war powers | No Comments »

On Richard Nixon

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 8/10/2014

OnRichardNixon   <– PDF version

It was 40 years ago this week (9 Aug 1974) that Republican President Richard M. “I am not a crook” Nixon resigned his office because he was discovered to be a crook.  He had willingly and knowingly covered up a burglary of the Democratic Party offices at the Watergate office building in Washington, committed by his supporters, some of whom worked in his campaign or his administration.  Nixon had waged a long internal battle to save himself from disgrace, but in the end the facts came out about his knowledge of the burglary and his abuse of power in covering it up.  We will probably never know if the burglary itself was his idea.  Many people in his own Republican party, understanding enough about history to know that honest government is always preferable to raw power, assisted in Nixon’s decline.  Nixon himself knew by then that he was about to be impeached, and would probably be removed from office, so he resigned in order to prevent a drawn-out political turmoil to the exclusion of other important issues (the Vietnam War being one of them).

So Nixon said good-bye and retired with full benefits to his mansion in San Clemente.  He was subsequently given a full pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, ostensibly to avoid seeing his old buddy have to stand trial for abuse of power and other crimes.  It was the worst mistake Ford ever made because it set the precedent by which future Presidents knew they could get away with anything.

Nixon was a crook.  He knew he was a crook, everyone else knew he was a crook, there was no means left by which he could talk his way out of it, and few in Congress or the courts were willing to tolerate any more of his corruption.  But let’s give old Tricky Dick some credit here: at least he retained some semblance of integrity such that deep down, he recognized that the American people deserved better than him.  Therefore, he did what was right by resigning.

We do not have that sentiment in politics any more.  The respective political parties have become so ideologically motivated towards the acquisition of power by any means that they will defend their crooks no matter what.  There is no limit to the crimes and abuses of power that will be tolerated so long as they expand their powers and associated privileges.  We have suffered with recent Democratic President William J. Clinton who even now cracks a smile whenever he is reminded of the massacre at Waco, the IRS targeting of his enemies, and the undermining of American elections with Chinese money (not to mention his personal victims).  Our current Democratic President, Barack H. Obama, regarded as the messiah by some of his supporters, has violated his oath of limited powers per the Constitution too many times to count, has once more encouraged and tolerated IRS abuse of his political enemies, and has implemented socialism at home and weakness abroad.

Unlike Nixon, who believed the American people deserved better, these two moral midgets believe the American people are not good enough for them.  I suspect the Republicans are no better.  So it will continue until “we the people” start demanding better, and start ignoring the slick political advertising extolling the alleged virtues of those who love power for its own sake.  In that spirit, I have three recommendations for elections:

1.  Regard every word by every candidate as being submitted to you, the citizen, as under penalty of perjury.

2.  Never vote for anyone who has committed perjury per #1.

3.  Only vote for those who have demonstrated a willingness to limit themselves to the enumerated powers granted to their offices under the appropriate local charters or state and federal constitutions.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Congress, elections, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »