An article on March 13, 2011 by The Illinois Conservative Examiner, said: Barack Obama Described Himself as a Citizen of the World, Not a Citizen of America..
The article says:
"He went to the UN and then the Arab League to discuss his Libyan options but not to Congress. He bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia and canceled our National Day of Prayer. So, should it not surprise you if we wonder if Barack Obama supported jihad in his Cairo Egyptian speech. A speech his mainstream media cheerleaders called monumental. Did the president of the United States incite the Egyptian and Libyan rebellions?"
Why are conservatives such cowards of life, so fear inspired? But then, I shouldn't be surprised because conservatives tend to be religious and most religions are based upon fear. A ridiculous and juvenile concept held over from childhood, but our own and our species.
I don't even know where to start with this article. Let's start with how we all need to start thinking of ourselves as "Citizens of the World". A citizen of the world is respectful of others, worldwide. Gives considerations to all people, everywhere and life on this planet. Once you start thinking globally, you have to be protective of life, because if you kill life locally, it may not really affect you, but if you kill it world wide, your a dead one, you are.
The article claims President Obama went to outsiders, the UN, the Arab League. And it's about time we stopped being ignorant and acting like cowboys. We need to act like scholars (oh wait, Pres. Obama, IS a scholar). We need to be open, as transparent as is reasonable. We need to act with others, not alone because we cannot afford it and it spawns ill feelings by other countries, which is just stupid, if we don't have to.
One bows to royalty, we can give that because we know ourselves, we are sure of our own place in the world. And it's showing respect, in the way of that person's country, and they are treated like royalty, so we work with that.
Why did Pres. Obama go to others about military action in Libya and not our own Congress? How about, by law, he doesn't have to due to THE WAR POWERS ACT OF 1973 (which Richard Nixon vetoed but got passed anyway), until ninety days after he initiate action, but his entire decision was to stop an emergency situation of people being slaughtered, then pulled back as soon as was possible. We are now out of there, and he has no need to go to Congress.
The New York Times put it this way:
"The law requires the President to notify Congress in a timely fashion when American troops are being sent abroad with a strong probability that they will engage in combat. It calls for the troops to be removed from foreign territory within 90 days unless Congress explicity gives approval for them to remain. In practice, the law has proven largely ineffective because of Presidential resistance and the willingness of Congress to stand aside and allow the White House to assume the political risks of sending troops abroad. In its place, Congress and the president have often negotiated congressional authorizations of force, measures that give prior approval to combat under certain conditions -- though those conditions have been vague enough to leave critics complaining that they, too, essentially give the White House a free hand."
So, what's the problem? What did he do wrong? Did he go to war and move thousands into a country, beat it down, take it over, and have no intention of getting out within ninety days? No, that would be little Bush, "W" himself.
So, what's the problem? Well, there is none. Other than conservatives being frightened of their own shadows ninety percent of the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment