What’s interesting in the news today?
Open Thread, as always.
President Obama says bombing Syria will have a positive impact on American foreign policy. I don’t see it. I don’t see how helping the rebels does anything good for the US. But he seems to think this “shot across the bow” move will benefit US interests. Again, I just don’t see it. His reasoning doesn’t make sense. He says it’s to ensure the chemical weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. Well how does that happen? You can’t just blow them up, that would disperse them in some cases. You’re not sending troops in to recover them, so how are you removing them?
And bombing the Syrian govt helps the rebels. You know, the groups we don’t want to get them. If the govt falls, those rebels will have possession of them all. This action defeats the stated purpose.
From RCP “PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, what’s happened has been heartbreaking, but when you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time, their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they’re allied to known terrorist organizations that, in the past, have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us. And we want to make sure that that does not happen. “
“And if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about – but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term, and may have a positive impact on our national security over the long term and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians.”
Congress needs to slow things down here, maybe wait on the UN report to see who is really responsible, and ensure that any action is thought out, debated, and authorized.
It appears the UK is backing off and saying they’ll wait on the UN.
From TheTelegraph “The Prime Minister has now said he will wait for a report by United Nations weapons inspectors before seeking the approval of MPs for “direct British involvement” in the Syrian intervention.
A second vote would be required before any British military involvement. This could now take place next week.”
The US Intelligence Committee has a problem with it.
From Reuters “U.S. congressional intelligence committee leaders believe the Obama administration has not properly consulted them as the president engages in final deliberations for possible military action in Syria, according to congressional officials.
One of the officials said the administration’s discussions with critical lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers, had been limited to “very brief status updates.”
“A number of U.S. lawmakers have complained in recent days that Obama must do more to involve Congress in any decision to punish Syria militarily in response to last week’s chemical weapons attack on thousands of civilians.”
And at least one Congressman is calling on Boehner to bring the House back to address it.
From CNSNews “Rep. Scott Rigell (R.-Va.)–who served six years in the Marine Corps Reserves, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents the congressional district with the largest concentration of military personnel of any in the nation–said today he is calling on House Speaker John Boehner to call the House back into session to prevent President Barack Obama from usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to authorize—or not authorize—the use of military force in Syria.
“He should be calling the House back right now,” Rigell said of Boehner. “I will be clear on this.”
“Rigell sent a letter to President Obama today—co-signed by a bipartisan group of “over 100” House members–reminding the president that it is “clearly delineated” in the Constitution that the president must seek congressional authorization before using military force unless the use of force is needed to protect the United States from an attack.
“While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate—and the active engagement of Congress—prior to committing U.S. military assets,” Rigell wrote. “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
You’d think the Constitutional Scholar/Professor would already know that, but no. Apparently it wasn’t covered. 🙄
And as a reminder, here’s more on some of the people this will aid.
From TheFreeBeacon “U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials.
Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the camps on condition of anonymity.
The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.”
Did I mention that I think this is a bad idea? Because I meant to.
_________________________________________________________
As I’m sure you’ve heard, Nidal Hasan has been given a death sentence for the massacre at Ft. Hood. Here’s a surprising piece from a surprising source on why this was terrorism, and not “work place violence.”.
From MotherJones “Last Thursday, as the jury in the trial of Nidal Hasan was deliberating, outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared on CBS News and discussed a string of emails between the Fort Hood shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic cleric with ties to the 9/11 hijackers. The FBI had intercepted the messages starting almost a year before Hasan’s 2009 shooting rampage, and Mueller was asked whether “the bureau dropped the ball” by failing to act on this information. He didn’t flinch: “No, I think, given the context of the discussions and the situation that the agents and the analysts were looking at, they took appropriate steps.”
In the wake of the Fort Hood attacks, the exchanges between Awlaki and Hasan—who was convicted of murder on Friday—were the subject of intense speculation. But the public was given little information about these messages. While officials claimed that they were “fairly benign,” the FBI blocked then-Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s efforts to make them public as part of a two-year congressional investigation into Fort Hood. The military judge in the Hasan case also barred the prosecutor from presenting them, saying they would cause “unfair prejudice” and “undue delay.”
As it turns out, the FBI quietly released the emails in an unclassified report on the shooting, which was produced by an investigative commission headed by former FBI director William H. Webster last year. And, far from being “benign,” they offer a chilling glimpse into the psyche of an Islamic radical. The report also shows how badly the FBI bungled its Hasan investigation and suggests that the Army psychiatrist’s deadly rampage could have been prevented.”
_________________________________________________________
A new Harvard study will be poorly received in liberal circles.
From Breitbart “A Harvard Study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” looks at figures for “intentional deaths” throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.”
“And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.”
If you’re interested, here’s the link to The Harvard Study. And if you scroll to the bottom you’ll see this, their conclusion.
“This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”
Ouch.
_________________________________________________________
According to the DoJ atheist leaders are eligible for certain tax break typically reserved for clergy. Not surprising, they’re not the first cult to receive it. 😯
And the irony here is that this comes out in a lawsuit seeking to do away with the exemption for clergy. Ha. 🙂
From UPI.com “The U.S. Justice Department says in a legal filing leaders of an atheist group qualify for the same housing tax exemption priests receive.
The paradoxical position comes in response to a lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., which seeks to end the parsonage tax break granted to priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy by the U.S. government. The tax break allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is suing the federal government because she has to pay taxes on that money while “ministers of the gospel,” as the law defines priests, do not.
In response, the federal government said rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption it could be extended to Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement — albeit one that does not believe in God.”
Meanwhile other atheist continue their assault on Christianity.
From TheWashingtonTimes “Atheists are threatening to sue over a planned Princeton, N.J., memorial to mark the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on American soil because a metal beam that’s part of the display has a small cutout of a Christian cross.
The beam is the brainchild of a firefighter — who’s Jewish — who says the cross is actually a historic symbol, not religious, on Fox News. The beam was removed from the site of the World Trade Center debris; the cross shape was then cut into it. But American Atheists say the cutout is “grossly offensive,” and members vow to sue the municipality if the memorial goes forth as planned.
The group’s president, David Silverman, insists that the symbol is religious and that putting it on a public site would be a “clear violation of the separation of church and state.””
🙄
_________________________________________________________
Yesterdays March on Washington was a sad imitation of the original. The speakers list pretty much ensured that. I could post tons of stuff from Sharpton and his ilk to demonstrate my point. But I’m not gonna do that. Instead, I have a question for you all. Does this sound like the type of thing Dr. King would have done?
From RedAlertPolitics “Noticeably absent from the speaker line-up at the Let Freedom Ring event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington today: the nation’s only black Senator, Tim Scott.
Scott, a Republican Representative appointed by S.C. Governor Nikki Haley earlier this year to fill former Sen. Jim DeMint’s seat in the U.S. Senate after he retired, was not invited to participate in the historic event, a spokesperson for the Senator confirmed to Red Alert Politics in an email.”
_________________________________________________________
Wandering Views 