Ted Cruz killed it today taking Obama to task for his decision to arm the Syrian “rebels”
[youtube]http://youtu.be/Aag7XL2e1Ww[/youtube]
He makes two observations to Obama:
“Number one, don’t arm al Qaida. Don’t arm those who hate us. Don’t arm those who want to kill us. Number two, when it comes to matters of vital national security, the President of the United States needs to come to the American people. It is not acceptable for the president to simply send out staffers to pass on his decisions. He needs to come before Congress and the American people and explain those decisions.”
By arming the “rebels” most assuredly he will be arming al-Qaeda. 7 of the 9 “rebel” groups are radical Islamists:
And one of those supposed non-radical groups is dedicated to fighting only in the Kurdish areas.
So he somehow believes these weapons aren’t going to get in the hands of al-Qaeda?
Give me a friggin break.
What should our priority be?
The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons…We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.
Now that’s talking like the President of the United States rather than a “citizen of the world” as Obama said yesterday.
We didn’t elect him to be a damn “citizen of the world”! We elected him to be our Commander in Chief, the President of this country. Instead he is intervening in wars half-heartedly, leaving a huge power vacuum behind in each country which is promptly filled by radical Islamists.
It’s a disgrace.
Ted Cruz has some simple questions:
- Why aiding the Syrian rebels is now worth our intervention when it wasn’t two years ago.
- How he has established which rebels are the appropriate recipients of this support and how this very limited support will make a material difference in Syria.
- How his team is proactively planning to keep Syria’s chemical weapons out of the hands of either Hezbollah or al Qaida.
Will he answer? Can he?
I doubt it.
See author page
@Redteam: PROBLEM IS… Since they let OBAMA SLIDE… a “legal precedent” has been set….. NOW WHAT???
@another vet, #91:
As of 2010, only around 15 percent of all U.S. military veterans were VFW members. That 15 percent consists disproportionately of older veterans who generally tend to have more conservative views. Additionally, local VFW posts tend to reflect local political attitudes.
We shouldn’t expect the attitudes expressed at any local VFW post to mirror the prevailing attitudes of veterans in general. VFW members don’t represent a random sample.
@Hankster58: I’m not sure that ‘a legal precedent’ has been set. Just because one bank robber gets away with it doesn’t mean the next one will. Besides, the bank robber hasn’t even been charged with it yet.
@Greg:
So the local political attitude is: They don’t like Obama?
My guess, 95% of veterans have no use for the Dimocrat party. and 90% of Dimocrats have a dislike for the military services. Veterans tend to be patriotic.
That’s because to be a member, you actually have to be a Veteran of a Foreign War. That’s about 15% of vets.
@Hankster58, #93:
I also voted for Ronald Reagan twice, before I suddenly realized that the republican bill of goods had ceased to be an accurate match for the items that were ultimately delivered. At which point I became very attentive to their sales techniques and campaign strategies. I’ve also become very attentive to the advertising techniques of the right wing media—otherwise known as propaganda.
People like Cruz are an affront to my intelligence. I’ve seen the program too many times before.
@Redteam: He was allowed to serve a FULL TERM, and now into a second?? How do you UNDO that?? Frankly, if after, he WAS proven NOT QUALIFIED… I’d want him, Pelosi, and ALL LIBS who “certified him”, Literally Strung up…. TREASON!
Then every piece of legislation illegally passed, for those 8 years ERASED!
@Greg: But you’re all cozy with Progressive socialistic commie types.. Gotcha!
@Greg: Sooooo, Obama is delivering much more of what he promised? and what would that be?
I would certainly hope so.
@Redteam, #105:
I guess you’ve got a bit of a problem explaining why they don’t vote along those same lines, then. One might also wonder why such a high percentage of members of the previous administration and its supporting republican majority Congress had no history of military service, compared with elected democrats. Or why most republicans of late seem to have been on the wrong side of every pro-veteran legislative initiative. They’re great at superficial displays of patriotism, however, and at criticizing those who don’t get sufficiently teary-eyed when the national anthem is played. I’ll give them points for that.
@Redteam: I’d suggest your ” guesses” in #95 are inaccurate. Like most guesses.
I’m a VFW member having served in combat in Viet Nam. That Navy tour ever put you in harms way?
My post breaks about 60% Repub 25% Dem. 15% Indie.
I’ve found ALL VFW members to be patriotic—no brainer. Would say the same about The American Legion.
As a Navy man, and a self proclaimed Patriot, to which Veterans Organization do you belong?What is it’s political breakdown. Thanks
Semper Fi
@Redteam, #106:
You might want to double- check your math. The VFW has around 1.4 million veteran members.
There were 2.8 million Americans who served in-country in Vietnam, alone. Another 2 million more were deployed during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also living Korean War vets, and a dwindling number of living veterans of the wars in Europe and the Pacific.
While VFW members are all foreign war vets, only a relatively small percentage of all foreign war vets belong to the VFW.
@Redteam, #110:
He has certainly delivered more than the republicans have recently. Offhand, I can’t think of a single constructive thing they’ve done over the past 5 years. Their only contributions have been to occasionally take down a roadblock, when it became a bit too obvious that they were putting partisan ambitions before the best interests of the nation.
@Greg: I didn’t do any math. If you will provide me with the number of total living veterans and the total number that served in War zones, I will divide the No. that served in war zones by the total number of vets and give you a %. I’d guess it’ll be near the number I guessed, about 15%
If you want a precise number, supply the numbers I stated.
Actually I don’t. What I do have a problem with is taking your word for any of those claims. Total BS.
@Richard Wheeler
Aren’t all military forces in harms way?
BS
and Republican.
@Redteam: You seem to think you know a lot about the VFW. Are you a member? If not how bout The American Legion?
@Redteam:
Possible. His mother is a US citizen. That could bring in the McCain rule. McCain was born in Panama and there was a big debate as to whether he was eligible to run for President.
@Greg:
Let’s be honest….nothing the republican House passes is going to make it out of the Senate. Both parties are obstructing each other. There is plenty of blame to be shared.
@Greg
Just for the record, Greg, the Dims are in control, so don’t expect the Repubs to be fulfilling promises til they get in charge.
You said: “Offhand, I can’t think of a single constructive thing they’ve done over the past 5 years.” I know you’re talking Repubs, but since the Dims are in charge, Name the 2 great things that Obama has delivered that you are especially proud of.
@Aqua:
Not at all. His father is a British citizen, therefore Obama was born as a British citizen. A person of ‘split allegiance’ can’t be a natural born citizen. Both of McCain’s parents were Americans.
@Greg: I agree. And neither should we let the views of 3 Vets in Indiana mirror the views of Vets in general either which was the point of my post.
Yo GREG.. tell me, have you ever worked in a Circus? Because you’re a REAL CLOWN!!
@Greg: He has certainly delivered more than the republicans have recently. Offhand, I can’t think of a single constructive thing they’ve done over the past 5 years.
Well Gee Greg, with Reid TABLING everything the Right sends over ….. what do you expect?? Dang you’re not very intelligent are you?
@Redteam: And under British law in effect at that time, and child of a British Citizen, WHEREVER BORN.. was an automatic British subject, Obama was BORN with Dual CITIZENSHIP… is THAT LEGAL for a Potus??
@Greg:
Source? I’d be willing to bet neither party had a high percentage.
Already have debunked this previously. Once by linking the Post 9-11 GI Bill they put forward as an alternative to Webb’s. More recently I posted links that I referenced here earlier about what Obama did with regards to the Post 9-11 GI Bill, the Tuition Assistance Program, retirement, and Tricare. Just out of curiosity, do you know or talk to anyone who is currently in the military? It sure doesn’t sound like it because they don’t seem to paint the rosy picture you do.
@Richard Wheeler:
VFW. Are you a member? Not eligible, was not in a war zone. American Legion, joined about 25 years ago, but there is no active post anywhere near where I presently live.
@Redteam, #115:
I really don’t need a precise number. The numbers that I quoted ought to be sufficient to dispel any notion that VFW members represent anything even close to a majority of U.S. veterans who served in overseas war zones. That was my only point.
@Redteam, #120:
The republicans were in charge, with a controlling majority or parity in both houses of Congress for 12 consecutive years, and a republican President in the White House for 6 of those same years. Were any significant initiatives introduced during that time to balance the budget?
What they did with all that power was cut taxes in a manner that disproportionately favored those who needed tax cuts the least—rationalizing it by asserting that cutting taxes would raise revenue—and push a wave of deregulation that put the foxes in charge of the hen houses.
What raised revenue for a time was a totally unsustainable, overheated economy, fueled by binge buying, irresponsible borrowing, and a series of investment bubbles that always left the little guy and hapless middle class taxpayers holding the bag, while various insiders scurried away with their loot and left central components of the economy teetering on the brink, begging for bailouts to avoid total disaster.
Over 12 years, they could have kept some promises. Why should I think they’ll do any better if they’re given free rein again? What they want to do this time—obviously, because it’s a stated objective—is to cut high end taxes even further, making that possible this time by totally dismantling the nation’s long-standing social programs.
There’s a single question that democrats should be putting to any middle class or working class voter who might be considering again empowering these people with a vote: Are you totally crazy?
@another vet:
you asked that of Greg. I live near one of the largest Army bases in the US and believe me, it is NOT loaded up with Dimocrat or Obama lovers. They all (in general) hate them and can’t wait for the Repubs to get back in.
@Greg:
What budget? Obama has flaunted the law 5 years in a row. He is required to submit a budget, he has yet to do so. You think it’s gonna get balanced anytime soon?
And those 2 things Obama has done that you are especially proud of is?
@Redteam, #129:
Simply saying a thing repeatedly does not make it true. I have great difficulty believing that a majority of active military personnel hate their Commander in Chief.
@Hankster58: @Hankster58:
As you well know, natural born citizen means born of two citizen parents so that there is no question of divided loyalty. Additionally, Obama became an Indonesian citizen. It is actually questionable if he’s even an American citizen since he may have lost it when he became an Indonesian.
@Greg:majority? make that a Super majority. In fact, I haven’t found one single active military person that has any respect for Obama.
@Greg:
Which 12 years would that be Greg?
@Redteam, #130:
The White House proposes budgets. It’s up to Congress to actually finalize the legislation and approve it. Unfortunately, Congress can’t seem to get it’s act together. The White House has thus far managed to work around that.
@Greg: zap missed that one greggie That’s not how it works…
@Greg: Which 12 years would that be Greg? Let me make it easy for you. Reagan was pres for 8 years, he had the House 0 years and the Senate 6, so he had absolute control (as you put it) for 0 years. HW Bush had the House for 0 years and the Senate for 0 years. I’ll let you do the math on that one. HWBush had absolute control for __ years? GWB was Pres for 8 yrs and had the House for 6 years and the Senate for 4. That makes a total of 4 years since 1981 that the Repubs were in control of all three. so your 12 years may be off by about 8. I hope some of your facts(?) work out better for you…
@Redteam, #134:
Refer to Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution. Republicans won control of Congress as a result of the 1994 midterm elections. They won a majority in both houses, and continued to dominate Congress until the 2006 midterm elections. As mentioned, there was a closed interval of a couple of years in there when their majority in one house was reduced to parity.
George W. Bush was in the White House beginning with 2001. From 2001 through 2006, republicans were in a very strong position to make good on their perennial campaign promises to address budget deficits. Things were actually looking pretty good toward the end of the Clinton administration, so it seemed like an opportune moment. Instead, we got two off-budget wars, and the first instance of deep tax cuts ever enacted while we were trying to pay for a war. Essentially, we went to war using a credit card.
The Bush administration seemed pretty goofy to me at the time. I can’t really say that it seems any less goofy in retrospect.
@Redteam: I have a hunch he doesn’t know anybody. I was in from ’79-’09. The military was ALWAYS better off under a Republican. The people I remain in contact with, both AD and Reserve, are all senior NCO’s and they all paint a rather grim picture from having to worry about what benefits this administration is going to go after next to money for training the troops to having to deal with the repeal of DADT (heard some stories that were real winners on that one).
@Greg:
Please tell us what the dems did to balance the budget when they controlled both Houses and the WH from ’93-’94 and ’09-’10. Notice which party voted overwhelmingly against a balanced budget amendment, not once but twice. If not trying to amend the Constitution to force Congress to balance the budget isn’t a significant initiative, perhaps you can tell us what is. Both parties have fallen far short in getting our financial house in order but it’s obvious which one has ZERO intentions of ever balancing a budget.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/194511-balanced-budget-amendment-fails-in-house
@Greg:
So funny, and who was the Republican pres from 94 til 01? Also, GWB only had both houses for 4 years, not 6. so which was the 12 years that the Pres and both houses were Repubs? As I said, they only controlled all three for 4 years from 1981 til the present. That was from Jan 01-Jan 05. I hope you know more about some of the things you talk about than you math calc’s are on this issue. I think you ran a wheel off.
@another vet: Yea, the Dims have failed to pass a budget of any kind for 5 years now.
@Redteam: True. You have to come up with a budget before you can balance it. Given they can’t even perform that required function, it’s no wonder they’ll never pass a balanced one.
@Redteam, #141:
I think I might have mentioned something about republicans having had parity rather than a majority in one house for a couple of the years in question.
@Redteam: #95
Some people are just diehard loyalists to whatever organization they belong to. The liberals seem to go along with whatever their party tells them, as long as they keep getting the free stuff.
@Greg: LOL, yea, a couple of years ,,,,,,,,as in about 8
@Redteam:
I thought you were talking about Cruz.
Obama was born in Hawaii, that pretty much closes the case. The quote I posted from Madison and the excerpt from Lynch v Clarke pretty much state that being born on US soil closes the deal on natural born citizen.
As a side note, I think that should be changed to people born on US soil to parents in the US legally with no allegiance to any other country. That would ensure illegal aliens, diplomats, and tourists didn’t get the perk of having a US citizen as a bonus. But the law is the law and as Mr. Bumble said in Oliver Twist, the law is an ass.
@Aqua: #147
Obama was born in Hawaii, that pretty much closes the case.
I don’t know if you have actually looked at the obama birth certificate. Please look at it now, except that you will have to go against obama’s telling you not to get your info from electronic devices. Was it written on a typewriter or a word processor? The word processor wasn’t used until after obama was born. Look how the letters are one size, but the numbers in the upper right corner are larger, and they are two separate fonts. Look at Box 2. See how the word “Male” is straight, but the line below it curves down. Put a straight edge under the word and you will see they are in line with each other. Look at line 6c. Look at the word “Maturity.” See how the tail of the letter “y” curls under the letter “t”? Try doing that with a typewriter. There are MANY, MANY more things the experts have found wrong with it. They didn’t even use an actual typewriter.
How many birth certificates have you seen where they took the time and trouble to put the thing on a scanner and print it out? They print it from the film copy. It is also in pdf format, which the experts say is very unusual.
It is obvious that you haven’t read the info about obama’s fake birth certificate. These are just a few of the items the experts say are wrong with it. The same goes for his Selective Service registration card (draft card).
If the birth certificate was exactly the same as it is now, except that it had George Bush’s info on it, I would be saying that it is a fake too, unlike liberals who go along with whatever their leader tells them to do.
This is how Dan Rather’s George Bush military records were easily proven to be fake. I forget what font was used, but several people typed the documents out exactly the way they were printed, put the original and the one they typed together, shined a light through them, and they matched letter for letter, and space for space. They didn’t think to use an actual typewriter. I guess they didn’t learn from their earlier mistake.
@Smorgasbord: For what it’s worth, my take on the BC is that it is fake but the reasoning behind it is different than the other theories. The only forensic investigation into the matter concluded that there is probable cause to believe it is fake and no one to my knowledge has challenged their physical evidence. When you take a close look, it is clearly visible to the naked eye that this was a cut and paste job. Another fact that came out of the investigation was that it was evident that the State of Hawaii is bureaucratically inept. It is my belief that the bureaucrats in Hawaii either lost or inadvertently destroyed the original somewhere along the way. Publicly admitting to having lost or destroyed someone’s BC would be very embarrassing especially if that someone went on to become POTUS. Rather than subjecting themselves to public ridicule, they went with the Kinko’s BC.
@Smorgasbord:
I’m with AV on the birth certificate. I’ve seen it, it looks fake. But both newspapers list the birth of Obama on August 4, 1964. Unless time travelers were involved or the parents found a psychic that knew Obama was going to run for president, that’s pretty telling that he was born in Hawaii.
@Smorgasbord: Smorg, your info on the birth certificate is all correct. I have often made the statement that anyone viewing the birth certificate for 5 minutes would conclude that it was a fake. There are so many discrepancies, you have only scratched the surface.
Aqua To be a natural born citizen means that there is no split allegiance. That you are born on the soil and that both your parents are citizens. Under those conditions, it is unquestionable. If you are born on other soil, but both your parents are US citizens, then you may still be, but it is more subject to question. Without doubt if one of your parents bestow citizenship on you of another country, then you have split allegiance, therefore you are not ‘natural born’ just a citizen by birth. There is a difference. Additionally, I think it is clear that Obama actually lost his US citizenship (if he actually ever had it) when he became a citizen of Indonesia and he never has been naturalized as an American since, therefore he is likely still an Indonesian citizen. At least, it is alleged, he claimed to be while receiving foreign student aid while attending Occidental college. There is no question that both Cruz and Rubio are not Natural born citizens.
That’s no problem, once his grandparents determined to show he was born in Hawaii, they put the announcement in the two papers. What they didn’t do is get any records into any hospital there showing that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii.
The whole world, by now, know that he is using a phony Social Security Card and fake selective service registration card.