Posted by Tina
The president is being criticized roundly from both sides on his decision to…well…participate in the military action being taken in Libya. Questions have arisen about the vagueries of the mission and whether Obama has the constitutional authority to make this decision without congressional approval. Mark Levin has a different take on the constitutional power that Obama has to use the military for this limited (poorly defined) mission.
I was sorry to see KZAP again change formats. Levin has a sharp wit and a keen mind. (Well, what would expect from a guy who has several times argued successfully before the Supreme Court? If anyone knows constitutional law it is Levin.)
He is a favorite of mine and I enjoyed being able to tune in every time I had a chance at 3pm.
Fortunately Levin provides mp3s of his recent shows online for free! What a great guy. I presume that is where you got this clip.
The canards that the Libyan action is unconstitutional or illegal are just as false as the those tossed around about the Iraq war when Bush was president.
At least the left have found their voice. It took a few days for the initial shock to wear off and now Obama is reaping the whirlwind. The leadership is very unhappy and the rabble is stepping in line. Now there is a true coalition of the willing!
I foresee that some exciting Peace and Justice Center street theater is just around the corner. Maybe they will stage a die-in! Wouldn’t that be fun! Quentin Colgan could wear his stupid top hat outfit and wander about foaming at the mouth about the Tea Party and violent revolution while everyone lies down on the lawn across from the bus station.
I almost feel sorry for Obama. I think he wants to be a force for good in the world (just like former President Bush) and believes that if he helps the rebels it could further the movement in Arab countries away from despots and tyrants and towards democracy.
Unfortunately, it appears that he is thoroughly inept and has received some very bad advice about how to go about it (as did President Bush). Not to play armchair general here, but Bush did handle it badly from stressing WMD before the action to way over-extending the forces after the drive to Bagdad.
Had George Bush went into Iraq with the intent of getting the job done (and had not danced around trying to succeed with the smallest commitment of troops possible) things might have turned out very differently. As we all know now, the surge came four years too late and our presence there still drags on.
Obama’s only chance for a limited salvation is if Mushmouth Godawful is blown into a protein paste and his command and control is wiped out or badly battered. And soon. Even then leftists will be screaming for the President’s blood … for wining an illegal action by illegally murdering a bloody, serial killer terrorist tyrant. (I can almost see the swastika emblazoned images of Obama at the left-wing protests to come.)
If this action in Libya drags on, Obama is completely screwed.
I wonder if the coming demonstrations (which are already being planned) will have a catchy, juvenile, school-yard chant as obnoxious and asinine as the one coined for the Iraq war, “Bush Lied, People Died”.
Maybe one of the left wingers who dog Post Scripts can come up with something.
Another tip for another possible blog post.
Yep, I have had my head stuck in the Washington Times again! (And I am already wincing at the scowl to come from the unhappy, violent revolution guy who haunts these pages.)
Military training material on gay kissing and other homosexual behavior is in the process of being released to U.S. troops.
“Its great training”, says Air Force spokesman Major Joel Harper.
I am sure it is. Military training is second to none. Excellence and proficiency is expected. If we commit boots to the ground in Libya such training should come in quite handy.
This must be a proud moment for Chris. K-12 is NEXT!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/22/military-set-to-train-for-end-of-dont-ask/
Pie Guevara, that article is completely hilarious. The writer lists the most basic, obvious information that the military needs to know in order to make this adjustment, and then calls it “indoctrination.” The use of this word in the title is especially egregious because the article appears in the “News” section, rather than as an editorial, even though the writer’s bias is abundantly clear throughout. It’s a total fear-mongering piece in search of something to be afraid of, and finding nothing.
Saying that the material is about “gay kissing and other homosexual behavior” is extremely misleading. The closest the training comes to being about this subject is this:
“Situation, it begins. You are the Executive Officer of your unit. While shopping at the local mall over the weekend, you observe two junior male Marines in appropriate civilian attire assigned to your unit kissing and hugging in the food court.
Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this within standards of personal and professional conduct?
The answer to Marines: If the observed behavior crosses acceptable boundaries as defined in the standards of conduct for your unit and the Marine Corps, then an appropriate correction should be made. Your assessment should be made without regard to sexual orientation.
Am I really supposed to be shocked and appalled by this? Really?
I found this line interesting as well:
“A Marine recruiter may not refuse to induct a gay civilian even though he views it as violating his religious beliefs.”
I’m unaware of any religious teaching that says “Thou shalt not let gays into your armed forces.”
As for your comment,
“This must be a proud moment for Chris. K-12 is NEXT!”
I can’t imagine how these new military regulations would be applied to a K-12 classroom; as far as I’m aware, being gay has never been grounds for expulsion. Your comment makes no sense.
This is the second time in a week that you have linked to a ridiculous, minority-bashing Washington Times piece. The last one relied on several false premises about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, such as that it doesn’t protect white people from racial discrimination (it does) and that it does protect homosexuals from discrimination based on their orientation (it doesn’t).
The Washington Times is not a good place to get one’s head stuck in.
Re: “Am I really supposed to be shocked and appalled by this? Really?”
Why do you infer so much? Relax. Have a nice soothing cup of tea.
Shocking and appalling never even crossed my mind when reading this. I wonder, why did it cross yours? (Actually I don’t really wonder, that was rhetorical, I could not care less how your mind operates.)
My only reaction to this news (not the article itself) was to laugh my posterior off at the sheer absurdity.
I felt I just had to share.
Evidently you were amused for different reasons than myself. Different people find different things extremely funny. Get over it. Learn to enjoy the rich diversity of humor that is singular to our species.
May I offer some advice? Before you go putting words in other people’s mouths (or attributing attitudes or thoughts you, obviously, cannot possibly know), I suggest you try reflecting about some of your assumptions first.
I like you Chris. I find you both intelligent and amusing. (As opposed to stupid and bellicose like some others who frequent these environs.) You just get a lot of things wrong. That’s OK. It is part of being human.
When new training runs counter to rules and procedures that were formally adopted, as well as whatr many hold as core beliefs, it is an indoctrination training. The word doesn’t always have a negative connotation.
“…it doesn’t protect white people from racial discrimination (it does) ”
That’s questionable, at least in some courtrooms in America and in the current Justice Department.
Pie–“My only reaction to this news (not the article itself) was to laugh my posterior off at the sheer absurdity.
I felt I just had to share.”
What is absurd about it? I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it.
Tina–“When new training runs counter to rules and procedures that were formally adopted, as well as whatr many hold as core beliefs, it is an indoctrination training. The word doesn’t always have a negative connotation.”
You’re technically correct. The two definitions given by Merriam-Webster are:
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2
: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Still, you have to admit that the first thing people think of when they hear the word is the second definition. I can’t remember ever hearing the word “indoctrination” used in a non-disparaging context. Certainly it isn’t a stretch to assume that this was how the writer meant it, especially given the agenda usually promoted by the Washington Times, and the bias evident throughout the article. For instance, the writer mentions statistics that show the marines are mostly against the repeal of DADT, but not the statistics that show support from most other branches of the military.
“That’s questionable, at least in some courtrooms in America and in the current Justice Department.”
What the Civil Rights Act contains or doesn’t contain is not questionable. It was written in 1964, and has nothing to do with the current Justice Department. Whether it will be properly applied is a question that you would ask. Since the DOJ has prosecuted minorities on the grounds that they violated the rights of white voters in the past, I see no reason to believe they will not continue doing so in the future.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009260009
You can also look up the statistics on anti-white hate crimes yourself. If you have any evidence that anti-white discrimination is prosecuted less than anti-minority discrimination, let me know where I can find it.
Pie, for information only Levin can be heard on 560 A.M. KSFO, at 3pm.