Obama: Peace Through Strength. Only Not for You

President Obama (and Hillary Clinton) were out and about today, pimping the position that U.S. military might might cause Syria to cave on chemical weapons. They repeat: if President Assad backs down it’s because President Obama rattled America’s saber. Which could well be true. But did anyone else think huh, if a “credible threat” is necessary to defend innocent life against a ruthless mass murderer why the hell can’t I have a “credible threat” to protect me from, I dunno, a ruthless mass murderer? Or even just one potential murderer? I can and it’s called a gun and my right to keep and bear it is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if our President, a Constitutional scholar, can see the parallel. Nah. Probably not.

comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    This is a late post… Night owls like me I guess.

    You’ve got a typographical error (might might) – see above.

    The president a constitutional scholar? I’m guessing that was sarcasm.

    US backed down likely due to Chinese and Russian pressure. After all, the US only bombs helpless countries that have no chance like Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Do they bomb countries like Russia? China? Oh no… that could be bad and Bullies don’t like their victims to fight back. US is focusing on chemical weapons of Syria? Because they killed a few hundred yea? But not North Korea, the largest gulag prison/death camp on planet earth. Why? Because North Korea has nukes and because they are very close to China and China doesn’t want us around there.

    “China, meanwhile, urged the U.S. to proceed with extreme caution and to respect UN discussions on Syria, after Washington said it was not seeking Security Council approval for possible military action.”

    Here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/09/syria-russia-china-us-strike.html

    and more info here:

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/09/2587861/brief-history-russia-blocking-international-action-syria/

  2. avatar Jason says:

    It seems like a contradiction, if you accept the premise that Obama actually cares about protecting innocent life. However, if you accept the premise that he cares about maintaining the power of the of the US political elite, there is no contradiction.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Once you accept that Obama is a statist, and does not care about the principles upon which our nation was founded, it becomes quite easy to understand. Obama is not about the reasonable 1st half of his sentences, but the 2nd. For example, I care about the 2nd amendment, but we need “common sense” gun control. I care about privacy, but we need to balance privacy against safety. Etc.

      Don’t get suckered into the 1st half of his sentences or his speeches – it is merely an effort by the speech writers to make Obama look reasonable. The 2nd half contains all the support of tyranny you need to make a reasonable decision regarding his values.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        I’m with you 100% that Obo is a Statist.

        Here’s my question, who’s really in charge? For the last 40+ years Presidents have been merely figureheads save for maybe Carter and GHWB. GW didn’t fart without Cheney and the neo-con whacko coalition telling him exactly what it should smell like. BC had his own bunch of Industrialists bent on giving our manufacturing to China so that they could profit, not to mention banking deregs. Reagan was pure unadulterated evil, wrapped in (what appeared at the time to be) chocolate covered bacon.

        From Nixon on, we have been treated to ‘leaders’ who are merely meat puppets with strings expertly pulled by interest groups – from the Military Industrial Complex, Prison Industrial Complex, Police Industrial Complex, and “The War On All Freedoms”.

        My favorite “tell” that it’s all utter propaganda nonsense is the rapidity with which Whitehouse Press Spokesmen decide to “spend more time with their families”. I don’t care what kind of Dexter sociopath you are, sooner or later, lying every second of your life gets to be too much.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I have a new name for the Complex: the Military-Industrial-Pharmacological-Entertainment Complex.

          Whattaya think?

        2. avatar 16V says:

          I’ll buy that for a dollar!…

        3. avatar NEIOWA says:

          16V you are amazingly uniformed and politically foolish. The place for those of the “neocon” stripe is demunderground and similar See also for the Cheneyists and those still whining/hating President Reagan. No,I think kooksareus.com is your homepage.

        4. avatar 16V says:

          NEIOWA, Ooh I’m hurt. And seconds later, I’m over it.

          Got a factual argument? Whip it out. I’ve got a C-note that says you weren’t legally able to buy a firearm when Satan Reagan was doubling the National Debt, and taking away my ability to buy new auto-guns.

          Do you even know the roots of the neo-con movement? Were you around when this hijacking of Conservatism took place? I was.

        5. avatar William Burke says:

          WHO are you claiming wasn’t able to buy a firearm during the Reagan administration? I’m sure TTAG readers can set you straight on that.

          As for “neo-conservatism”; it was previously known as “neo-liberalism”. I DARE one you to prove me wrong on that!

        6. avatar 16V says:

          WB, Me, that’s who. I was relieved of my legal ability to purchase a brand-new auto-gun because Bonzo signed the bill. Do look it up – one of our worst anti-gun Presidents ever was Raygun…

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Definitely agree with that. Obama sought to equalize the value of people’s time (middle class and poverished only) so that both groups get the same money for their time. In actuality however, what he has done is reduced the value of the time of a person that works long and hard hours for something that person desires and given that value to people that work leisurely. The leisurely are actually paid a higher amount per hour than those that work hard and long. Great idea. The net result is everyone should work leisurely as any hard work goes unrewarded. And… they have the audacity to talk about economics. Hilarious bunch.

        What are those three monkeys that cover their eyes, ears, and mouth? yep…

        Share the wealth:

        I.E. take the fruits of my labor from me… and give them to someone else. (Government mandated charity). Great.

      3. avatar peirsonb says:

        I first noticed that two halves to every sentence trick during his first State of the Union. I forget the exact wording but the sentence that sealed it for me went something like:

        We will get out of this recession if everyone works hard, and if everyone gets their fair share.

        GETS. Not earns, not works for, GETS. Has their “fair share” handed to them, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

      4. avatar eshank881 says:

        Momma always told me to ignore anything that was said before the word “but” since the speaker’s real viewpoint always comes after it

  3. avatar John F says:

    If you belive that, Community Orgnizer, from Chicago, born in Africa, Smooth Talking Political Scam Artist
    I have a Bridge to sell you,,,
    Who will come to OUR defense when the Civil war starts….
    Think about it…

    1. avatar Frank Masotti says:

      Those of us who keep and bear arms, and are not stupid enough to turn them in when the government calls for it. Before hand of course. Also hopefully the oath keepers will help.

  4. avatar William Burke says:

    And why isn’t it all over the Presstitute Media that the White House DENIED the AP’s request to have a look at his “evidence” against the Syrian government?

    I thought they “had proof”?

    1. avatar Frank Masotti says:

      The lap dog drive by media will NEVER do anything to hurt berak whosane obama

  5. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Robert, you’re asking a lot of our “Constitutional Scholar in Chief”. Connecting those dots is probably a bridge too far for the Lightworker.

  6. avatar Dave says:

    You might be getting confused about the difference between owning a gun and owning an unregistered gun. You have a right under the Constitution to own a gun. No one is trying to take that away.

    All I want to take away is your “right” to sell it at a garage sale without a background check to someone who might be preparing to use it in a crime.

    Do you see the difference there?

    1. avatar Derrick says:

      Whoops, I didn’t realize I HAD to register my guns. Sometimes I forget that I have to ask permission from the government. Silly me. Well once I get my guns registered, I’ll be able to enjoy all the amenities that come with Club Fed, like the permission to sell my personal property at a garage sale to a potential non criminal after a background check, or having Dianne Feinstein as my personal gun advisor on what im allowed to keep lawfully per the constitution cause the Fed is here to watch out for ya. Golleeeee, why didn’t I sign up sooner.

    2. avatar Scout says:

      Where did we hear that? You have right to own guns. All I want is to take your right to own the guns that shoot too rapidly…are too short…too quiet…have too many rounds in magazine…have bayonet lug…or removable magazine…look like military guns…and so on. Oh and don’t forget to get background check…fingerprints…CLEO signature…than wait for about a year or so. And register it in case we decide to take it away we know where it is… But your natural right is not infringed!

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        So what you’re saying is that I have a Constitutional right to own a gun, I just can’t buy one. I see now.

  7. avatar John Dennis says:

    It’s not “Peace Through Strength”. The correct and original term is, “Peace Through Superior Firepower”.

  8. avatar MojoRonin says:

    Yes, i imagine a constitutional scholar is the perfect source for tactical and defensive advice. What is it with people who don’t know what they are talking about telling you how to do it these days? What next, the local gas station clerk will operate NASA programs?

  9. avatar Mediocrates says:

    The only reason Odumbo is a Constitutional scholar is so he can figure out more ways for the Federal government to get around that pesky little piece of paper…

  10. avatar Gregolas says:

    “See the parallel”? Obama couldn’t see beans if his head was in the bag!

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Mr. Farago asked, “I wonder if our President, a Constitutional scholar, can see the parallel.” In this case the parallel is “peace through strength” at the government level would also work at the individual level.

    Oh our president sees the parallel. He actively ignores it because it doesn’t fit his agenda.

    Obummer would promote that parallel if he wanted peace, but he doesn’t want peace. He wants total government control of everything with him at the top.

  12. avatar Pascal says:

    This all about keeping face, nothing more, nothing less. He stepped on his own dk when he dared them to “cross the red line” and backed by Iran, Syria pushed over the line. It makes no sense to all of sudden care after 100K people have died in the conflict. We have no dog in this fight and this is just for Obama and the DNC to keep face. We have an inept President and with and inept administration — nothing more and nothing less and they are simply worried about legacy and face for the next election not about the people whom may have been killed by Chemical weapons.

  13. avatar NEIOWA says:

    Strength???? Obuma has done an amazing job of keeping the gutting of the US military quietly. Huge RIF of troops, inactivation of units. Unlike previous such occasions of dem idiotcy DOD is surplusing (selling) the equipment that would be needed to reactivate these units.

    For example over the last couple years DOD has been selling off ALL mil spec trucks built pre 9/11 (M935 series, M1070 HET, HEMMT, Mk48), is trying to shut down Lima tank plant as “will never have another high intensity (mechanised/armored) conflict”.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      But on a brighter note, DHS is hiring. And soliciting for more ammo again. See, the economy is booming.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    Obama and the Democrats argue that they are fine with you having guns for personal protection, but that they just thing that guns that are meant for soldiers should be banned. They are either misleading people purposely or are unaware that such guns are one and the same for the most part.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Both or either, depending on who you talk to.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email