Obama Throwing Missile at Syria

Obama noted that there is a red line that Syria must not cross, or there will be enormous consequences.

On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue. I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.

What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far. And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating -- or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.

The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights. And that consultation is taking place.

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Q So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?

THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

Obama said, "We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people." My best guess is that the Russians are correct and the "wrong people" already have control of some of those weapons --not that Bashar al-Assad is much better. If we weaken Assad and the weapons aren't secured there is absolutely no reason to be there. Securing the weapons would require boots on the ground.

It comes down to this; with all that this administration has done to hoodwink the American people, Americans are skeptical of anything Obama claims as fact.

Obama said that Bashar al-Assad has lost credibility, that may be. On the American front Obama has lost credibility. Perhaps for the first time since his presidency the media really can't cover for him.

Either Obama and his administration are ignorant, or his/their agenda is far worse than we thought. Regional destabilization. I believe that this is their goal.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Uncle Sam Smoking a Joint

Well it's official. The Fed is not going to enforce the law. Pot smokers don't have to worry anymore because if their state passes a law legalizing pot then it's   a-l-l   g-o-o-d   m-a-n...

I don't smoke pot so I don't really have a dog in this fight. Do I think that pot legalization is the end of the world? No. Would I rather be trapped in a jail cell with 10 dudes that are high, or 10 dudes that are drunk? I'd rather not be in jail! People are going to do what they are going to do. Some people might be deterred by the law, but most aren't. After all like Maurice said, "...I don't wanna hurt no-one."

I just have issue with the way that this going down. The Justice Department has unilaterally decided that it doesn't want to enforce the law. Obama took an oath to uphold The Constitution, the Justice Department is part of The Executive Branch --Eric Holder is part of Obama's Cabinet. So, where does it go from here? Oh, that's right! The Justice Department is also not enforcing federal immigration laws either. See this memo (quoted below).

One of ICE's central responsibilities is to enforce the nation's civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency's enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2,2011, which this memorandum is intended to support.

Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise "prosecutorial discretion" if it is to prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement. When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.

The strangest thing is the disclaimer???

Disclaimer

As there is no right to the favorable exercise of discretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit the legal authority of ICE or any of its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.

That's right, because if you don't follow written law you are going to be in big trouble --after we just told you it's OK to not follow the law.

So it's not a directive to not follow the law. It's a memo telling you that if you choose not to follow the law there will be no consequences. Oh, and it's a good idea to not follow it, you just don't have to not follow it...

This is a very troubling precedent. Right now discretion might be applied in a "mostly" logical manner, but what happens when it's not? What happens when the laws that directly protect citizens are also ignored? Discretion is an extremely vague term and differs depending on who is exercising it.

So if you get pulled over in a state where pot is legal, just ask the police officer if you wants a toke, he might use discretion and let you go.

I have changed my domain from haveabadone.homedns.org to winduprubberfinger.com

Tell your friends!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Gay Protesters Face Prosecution in Russia

Russia is not the kind of place where openly homosexual individuals can display their affection in public. One Russian lawmaker has passed a law banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations." For some people in America this is considered a scandal. I think it's quite the opposite.

Considering that the vast majority of the Russian population doesn't approve of homosexuality; this law is not surprising.

Sociologists say that tolerance (particularly to homosexual individuals) as a social phenomenon has been fading in Russia during the recent decade. The majority of respondents said in 2010 that they refused to take homosexual practice for normal relationships. Seventy-four percent of the polled said that gays and lesbians were morally perverted and mentally unbalanced individuals (68% - in 1998). Only 15 percent of Russians believe that homosexual and heterosexual individuals should enjoy equal rights in the Russian society. The research was conducted by Levada Center.

There is no scandal here, just a law that represents the majority opinion.

There would be a scandal only if Russian authorities arrested people and prosecuted them without this law in place. This law will protect LGBT individuals by letting them know that there are consequences should they do what is considered unacceptable by the majority of Russians.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

There was a point when I thought that some people were simply not paying attention.

Now that the Obama administration's true character is becoming publicly visible; there is no way that the American people can honestly look at all of the insanely obtrusive and morally defunct actions of this administration and excuse it. After the IRS scandal does anyone really believe there was no voter fraud taking place? Does anyone really trust these people anymore?

As for the Republicans; I'm afraid that the party is dead and just doesn't know it yet. The Republicans have managed to keep Democrats hating them, while simultaneously losing the respect of the people who were hoping they would come through. No amount of charisma is going to make someone's beliefs invisible (Marco Rubio).

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The Democrats don't have to worry about what their candidates do or say, because they know that their constituents don't care anyway --even when they do actually pay attention. Republicans have to truly and honestly give their constituents reasons to vote for them.

If people don't wake up to what's been happening over the past 4+ years. I don't think that they are going to wake up. It's probably going to be a nasty decade or two.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!