Trying to Put a Pretty Face On an Ugly Party

“We, as the American people, should be concerned when any president of the United States launches an illegal and unconstitutional military strike against a foreign government.  This is something congress has not authorized, and it’s an escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war in Syria that our country has been waging for years.  First for many years through the CIA covertly, and now overtly through President Trump’s reckless military strike last night.” –Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat (HI)

While I am still not so sure that striking Syria at this time was such a good idea, I am sure that the democrat response, and specifically the response of Tulsi Gabbard who seems to represent the views of most democrats on this issue, is one of outright hypocrisy.  Despite her relatively attractive external appearance, she is just as dark and intellectually bankrupt on the inside as the rest of the democrat party.

Perhaps you remember one Barack Hussein Obama committing US forces to combat in Libya to support rebels seeking to overthrow the government of Libya.  There was no legitimate US interest in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, who had kept to himself since nearly being killed by Ronald Reagan in Operation El Dorado Canyon, and in fact had actually been cooperating with us by providing intelligence on terrorist organizations and activities.  Yet Barack Obama sided with the rebels seeking to overthrow Gaddafi, violating the War Powers Act by not receiving approval from congress within the required time, or at all.  In doing so, Obama fanned the flames of what came to be known as the “Arab Spring,” which ultimately destabilized the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, and created what became ISIS.

In Gabbard’s revised history, did she or the democrats say the American people should have been concerned when Barack Obama launched an illegal and unconstitutional military strike against a foreign government?  No.  No, they did not.  In fact, she completely left out Obama’s and the democrats involvement in destabilizing the middle east, and waging a war to overthrow Bashar Assad, who was of no threat to America.

There are a number of reasons why striking Syria right now may not have been the best idea.  There is the possibility Russia may have been responsible for the chemical weapon strike instead of Syria.  If the Syrians performed the strike, why did they have chemical weapons at all, since Obama supposedly arranged for Russia to take all of Syria’s chemical weapons in a brokered deal following Obama’s multiple “red lines” which he never enforced.  Shouldn’t Russia have to answer these questions?  Then there is the possibility that we could have accidentally hit the Russians in Syria, leading to war between us and Russia, which we are not prepared for.

So many reasons NOT to strike Syria.  But we did strike them, and in doing so have ONCE AGAIN exposed the intellectual dishonesty of the democrat party, and the liberal left in America.
+

---

---

+

Rep. Gabbard: Syria missile strike ‘illegal and unconstitutional’

Published April 07, 2017

FoxNews.com

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Friday that the American missile strike on a Syrian airfield as “an illegal and unconstitutional military strike” that drew the United States closer to military conflict with Russia.

Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, also said the strike was “an escalation of a counterproductive regime change war in Syria that our country’s been waging for years, first through the CIA covertly, and now overtly.”

FLASHBACK: GABBARD SAYS SHE MET WITH ASSAD DURING SYRIA TRIP

In January, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. When host Tucker Carlson asked if she believed Assad’s forces to be responsible for the chemical weapons attack that precipitated the missile strikes, Gabbard answered, “It doesn’t matter what I believe or not. What matters is evidence and facts.

“If the Trump administration has the evidence, unequivocally proving this, then share it with the American people,” Gabbard continued. “Share it with Congress. Come to Congress and make your case before launching an unauthorized, illegal military strike against a foreign government.

“Gabbard also said that efforts to overthrow Assad would only strengthen extremist groups, and expressed concerns about Moscow’s response to the missile strikes.

“Russia … are very closely allied with Syria and … have their own military operating [on] the ground there,” the congresswoman said, “and when you consider the consequences of that, the United States and Russia being the two nuclear powers in the world, it should be a cause of great concern for everyone.”

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc

The list of Obama lies, corruption, etc. is now growing so long that you need a continuous scroll to document it all, and what has been uncovered is just scratching the surface. He has so blatantly broken the law that he should have been impeached in the first year of his presidency. But he didn’t just stop with breaking the law. By giving aid, even military aid, and comfort to our enemies, he has committed treason, and he should meet the fate of a traitor.

Enjoy a little light reading in the linked pdf below. Get comfortable. It may take a while to read all of misdeeds of one Barack Hussein Obama.
+

---

---

1063-documented-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-etc

Allen West: The case for impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama

While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. West here, let us not forget that this willful breach of the law is just the latest in a long, long list of willful, knowing violations of the law, circumventing congress, taking power which the Constitution does not authorize him to have, and even aiding the enemies of the United States of America.  When compared to reasons other presidents have been impeached, Obama should have ALREADY been impeached a hundred times over.

Nixon was about to be impeached for his supporters breaking into the campaign offices of his opponent, but he at least was honorable enough to resign before the impeachment.  Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob in the oval office.  Obama has willfully directed his agencies to BREAK THE LAW, and in doing so has GOTTEN AMERICANS KILLED, and with the release of these high-ranking taliban members back into the cesspool, may lead to many more American deaths.  He has also cost America hundreds of billions of dollars because of his willful violations of our immigration laws, which is also circumventing both the legal and natural process for transforming our nation.

Barack Obama is without one shred of doubt a DOMESTIC ENEMY of America and our Constitution.  He MUST be removed AND imprisoned.  If congress won’t act to restore constitutional sanity to our government and nation (hard to imagine they will since they are also off their constitutional reservation), then Americans will be required to do it ourselves.  If that becomes the case, the president AND all of congress will be removed, and many of them jailed, or worse.  America is being pushed into a corner from which there are only two choices of escape.  Surrender and be a slave, or fight to restore the Constitution to its rightful place as THE rule of law in America.  It is now clearly the moment when we must choose our course.
+

---

The case for impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama

Written by Allen West on June 3, 2014

This morning on WMALs “Morning on the Mall” radio show with hosts Brian and Larry I was asked a simple question relating to the Taliban prisoner release and impeachment of the president. I responded yes that in this current case, the U.S. House of Representatives should file articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama.

Now before all the detractors go apoplectic here, let me tell you about Article 2 signing statements, their intent, purpose, history, and usage, and the implications for the president’s impeachment.

President Obama used an Article 2 signing statement to deem unconstitutional a measure HE had signed into law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The law stated that he must advise Congress within 30 days about any plans to transfer detainees from GITMO. Obama basically stated that this was “unconstitutional” and that his unilateral action fell within his purview. Once again Obama used selective discretion as to what law he feels he must adhere to — in this case it has severe ramifications for our national security.