The Wisconsin Grandmother Who Stood Up to Union Thugs, The Teri O’Brien Show Notes, 4/3/11

We were delighted to welcome as a special guest, fresh from her appearances on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” and “America Live” on Fox News, and the day before her appearance on “On the Record with Greta Van Sustreren,” Union Grove, Wisconsin entrepreneur Dawn Bobo, whose refusal to be intimidated by union thugs has made her a national hero. You will be inspired and delighted to hear her story of American courage and determination. They didn’t know what they were messing with when they decided to threaten this plucky grandmother. Don’t miss hearing her story of triumph and success over multiple obstacles! In our Culture Watch, “How to Pick Up Girls, 21st Century Style.” Sunday Show Update: Paul Ryan brilliantly explains that we don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. Illinois’ pudgy huckster, who once slandered our troops as the equivalent of Nazis, suddenly expresses concern for them and how they will be effected by the inexplicable publicity given Koran-burning preacher Terry Jones.   Plus the return of the man who is certified black enough to bust the Left, the Critiquelator.

Links

Richard Durbin Muslim | Durbin flubs Muslim-discrimination hearing | The Daily Caller – Breaking New…

Wisconsin Union Law Could Be on Hold For Months – WSJ.com

When a Girl is Executed…for Being Raped – NYTimes.com

Five Most Awkward Moments of Charlie Sheen’s Detroit Show – The Hollywood Reporter

Wisconsin Union Law Could Be on Hold For Months – WSJ.com

Woman charged with email threats – JSOnline

Capitol Chaos: Union Upset Over Letter | Today’s TMJ4 – Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Weather, Sports, WTMJ | Local News

I Support DAWN BOBO (23)

Union leader says no boycott planned, blames ‘overzealousness’ for threats

Village Dollar

 

Barack and Awe, Baby!

Barack and awe baby.  The Obomber strikes back!!!!   Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Peace Prize winners combined!!

I suspect that it would have been far more beneficial had those Tomahawks blasting Libya had been aimed at the UN building in NY City instead.

I agree, the Libyan tyrant is despicable, and immediately after these acts of terrorism, particularly Lockerbie,  we should have declared war and gotten rid of him.

But, we didn’t, and instead what we have is the UN authorizing military action, and the US military, with no debate or congressional authorization, becoming involved in what amounts to a civil war because we don’t like one side, and our allies, the French and Brits, have strategic interests there.

Last time I checked, our armed forces didn’t exist to advance the goals of France and Britain and the UN.

Besides, who are we backing? Are the “rebels” really eager to bring a representative government to Libya, or are we just doing the heavy lifting for a new Taliban?

Barack Obama finally has a war he can believe in. This intervention in Libya seemingly conforms  to the president’s world view. He gave soothing assurances in his Friday afternoon statement that this action would not entail committing US ground troops and somebody else will lead it, just like he gave us assurances that if you like your health care plan than you could keep it..

I don’t see this as a cautious desire to minimize foreign or domestic fallout should            TV images become unduly horrific, but I suspect that the motive is less to minimize the US role than it is to exalt that of the UN and other supra-national organizations, such as the Arab League, and all of the NGO camp followers that normally feed off such international coalitions.

Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war and the POTUS as commander in chief of the armed forces. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people.

This action promises finally to use American military power in the kind of international relief and social service agency capacity Obama’s internationalist foreign policy team would like it to be, its mission unsullied by grubby considerations of national interest. One observer has already compared it to the international intervention in Kosovo, an intervention that delivered the Kosovars into the hands of UN and EU caretakers, despite their declaration of independence.

Even more significantly Obama’s world view requires victims to be serviced, and not winners to be supported. As long as the Libyan rebels had a chance to prevail, they were of little value to a messianic narcissist bent on removing the “Incomplete ungraded section” from his Nobel Peace Prize citation. Battered, pleading Libyans huddled around Benghazi are the prerequisite for making this  intervention work politically. In just the same way Obama and Pelosi needed the image of sick, desperate, hard up Americans to make the case for ObamaCare, the Stimuli, and financial services “reform.”

War without victory, intervention that produces dependency, Americans shouldering the burdens but obscured in a fog of UN acronyms, a maze of rules of engagement and process that squeezes every last bit of spirit and motivation out of warriors, may not be a strategy, but it sure as hell explains the motivation.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

So, has the clock started and does congress give a damn?

The next question, since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war?

Since one half of our fellow Americans believes in one world without borders and at least one half of the remainder do not care.

Everyone and his dog thinks nowadays in collectivist terms: as long as we sat down ’round table,shared our feelings, and came to a consensus — all is well! Principles, our Constitution, the gradual submission of our courts to foreign ones — all be d-mned ’cause we reached a consensus.

It is all about some delusional touchy-feely thing. Has someone, whether Europeans, UN, our government, even tried to tell us whom we are supporting in Libya or what kind of structure they see will emerge? The point is not whether to agree with their opinion but what is that opinion? Not a word of reasoning, but all governments are beating themselves in their populist chests, “We want to defend the pe-e-o-o-ple of Libya.” Yep, all 50 tribes from each other.

President George W. Bush did communicate a national security objective for OIF. But this action in Libya seems to be warranted by it’s authors precisely because there IS no national security objective.  I am still struggling to explain why conservatives, including Sarah Palin, would even think a second about supporting attacks on Libya. But they blame the President for not doing enough.

In keeping with the theory that Obama is overtly evil rather than merely stupid, all of his actions can be easily understood as follows: any action that will help diminish the U.S. domestically or internationally is the one Obama will take.

Domestic destruction of our freedom and our economy are taking place via massive and unsustainable deficit spending, co-opting the Fed to print unlimited amounts of money, insane regulation, insane EPA carbon regulation, wealth “redistribution”, empowering unions, ignoring case law, trampling our constitution, failing to secure our borders, suing states that wish to try and protect themselves from the depredations of Obama’s government, preventing development of domestic coal, gas, and petroleum resources, socializing health care, trying to establish the constitutional principle that the federal government can make us buy anything they tell us to, stealing ownership of the GM and Chrysler from its secured bondholders, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

On the foreign front we have dithering, rudderlessness, daily policy reversals, physically bowing to foreign leaders (especially Muslims), eschewing and insulting our allies like the U.K. and Israel, supporting our enemies like Iran, prosecuting the Afghanistan war in a manner deliberately calculated to lose, putting clueless idiots in charge of national security like James Clapper, ad nauseum.

And now Obama decides to go to war with Libya for no particular reason, this latter calculated to fail in such a way as to discredit our military and to discredit entry of the U.S. into any future foreign action no matter how well justified.
Kaddafi has been a terror sponsor since the 80s. Reagan had every reason to depose this SOB. After Lockerbie, there was even more reason.

Why do we leave murderous despots in power, for DECADES, when they kill Americans, yet attack him when he kills his own people?

If the oil production of one small, unstable country is so important to our economy, then why wont we “drill, baby, drill”?

When it comes time for a Congressional vote under the War Powers Act, I would like to see the House insert an earmark striking down obamacare, attach an earmark streamlining the budget, vote yes and send it to the presidents desk for his signature or veto.

Who said this,  “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”. — Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

Remember – When a Republican President launches military action after lengthy UN & Congressional debate,fruitless economic sanctions, and ultimately resolutions to use force, it’s an illegal war and “cowboy” diplomacy.

OBama’s action in Libya have EVEN LESS legitimacy than Bush’s Iraq/Afghanistan. AT least Bush got authority from Congress and UN with one year debate. Obama only got it from UN and then rushed to war

Obama has just given Qaddafi all the encouragement and incentive he needs to go back into the terrorism buriness, IMO!

Liberals have a fungible idea of how this stuff goes, depending on who occupies the White House.

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
Western air strikes pounded Muammar Gaddafi’s defenses and allied warplanes patrolled Libyan skies Sunday, lifting the siege of Benghazi and allowing rebels to surge forward and retake lost ground.

We had tamed Daffy and he was not disturbing us much. Now we have opened up a whole new can of worms which will not be to our benefit.

What exactly would be the example shown? That the UN is sovereign? That military action must be allowed by governments even when directed at themselves?

And the message to the tin-hat dictators (not sure all those countries fit that description in any case) is what? That the UN might depose them if opposition arises in their countries? That insurrection is not to be resisted?

There were things on the table Obama could have threatened to take from Gadaffi before war. In recent months, new trade agreements with Libya, we just reopened (few months ago) tourism between our two nations. We are bombing a country and it has nothing to do with national security. And we’re doing it in THIS economy!

But it has to do with national security now. We cannot stop this until Gadaffi’s dead, we have to topple his government, and we baby-sit Libya until the vacuum is filled. We certainly cannot do what we did to a whack-job dictator like Gadaffi and then let him remain in power without seeing civilian aircraft falling from the skies.

What was not a national security issue before has become a national security issue since the bombing started last night.

This war is a NO WIN for us. You have heard of the old salesman pitch win/win. This is a lose/lose.

If Gadaffi stays in power, we lose. Damaged relations and he will surely seek revenge. As it is now, the world must kill him.

If Gadaffi is ousted, Iranian proxy groups take over and Iran becomes the defacto M.E. version of USSR superpower. This will threaten the US and put extreme pressure on Saudi and Israel.

Bush had it right. As with Iraq, the only way to win in Libia is to conquer and occupy. But we do not have the money or resources to do this. It will bankrupt us.

No matter how ‘Obama’s Folly’ ends, we lose. We should have sat this one out. Too late now.

Obama spent another $220 million of taxpayer money and killed a number of Libyans which will no doubt burnish his tough guy credentials for the 2012 reelection campaign.

Plus, it helps his buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda take control of Libya and their oil and turn Libya into another militant Islamic stronghold.

Thanks to Obama, we will soon see Libya go the way of Iran:

Al-Qaeda commander calls for overthrow of Gaddafi and introduction of Sharia Law

“Abu Yahia al-Libi, the head of Sharia committee of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, has urged his Muslims countrymen to overthrow the regime of Moammar Gaddafi and establish the Islamic rule, taking advantage of current events that sweep through the region, UmmaNews reports citing the Associated Press.”

Previously, Muammar Gaddafi said that al- Qaeda was behind the Libyan uprising seeking to end his dictatorship that lasts for more than 40 years.

It is worth noting that Gaddafi brutally suppressed any attempts to appeal to Monotheism and to implement the Sharia Law which are an integral part of Islam.

He forbade the imams to preach in their sermons (hutbah) on issues associated with politics, and also brutally punished the Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan.”

Obama hastened to declare in his Friday afternoon statement what it would not entail– no US troops on the ground, and somebody else will lead it.

Being fluent in Obomanics, I can translate this:

We will send thousands of troops in as peacekeepers under U.N. command.

And to conclude  Barack Hussein Obama!!!  Umm Ummm Ummmm!!!!!

 

The Critiquelator Speaks For Mar 13 2011 Obama and Libya

I aim to clarify my position as to military intervention in the Libyan Civil War. Gaddafi is a bloody tyrant and an enemy of the US. As a conservative I believe in natural law. People everywhere retain the natural law right of rebellion against absolute despotism and tyranny. They do not however have an expectation that horrible consequences will not ensue from the exercise of such rights. It is unreasonable to assume a despotism will not attempt to crush a physical threat to it’s existence with the utmost in ruthlessness and power that it can muster. Gaddafi is such a tyrant.

Not withstanding this, I’d be interested to know how many of these rebels marched in the streets of Libya protesting intervention of the U. S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How many of them danced in the streets after 911, holding signs saying, “Death to America!”, “Death to Bush!”, “America is the Great Satan!”

How many of them demanded the destruction of Israel? Does their leadership have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Queda? The ultimate beneficiary of the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeni, had little to do with directly removing the Shah.

Gadaffi deserves to be removed, but what will follow him? It is sure to be some form of theocratic oppression or strong man dictatorship or a combination thereof. Since being cowed by RWR and GWB, Gaddafi has renounced both his nuclear arms program and his support for international terrorism. By most accounts he has been fairly scrupulous in continuing to do so. Might his replacement discontinue this policy?

My concern today is with the Obama Administration’s feckless response. Whatever the POTUS decides to do, that decision should appear decisive, informed and the presidential team should be unified in statements and principle, whether Obama agrees with me or any one else or not.. Instead the Sec of State says “all options are on the table” while his Sec of Def gives a thumbs down to any ideas of a no-fly zone. My comments are geared toward the accomplishment of what Obama seems to say that HE wants to do.

Well, it’s 3 a.m., the red phone is ringing, people are knocking on the White House door, and nobody’s answering. Middle Eastern and North African countries are boiling over and there is civil war in Libya. China’s huge demand for oil sent its naval ships to the Libyan coast early on. Gasoline prices are soaring and at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar lied to Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was increasing despite the fact that the Obama admin oil drilling moratorium is unconstitutional and that it has reduced the number of rotary oil drilling rigs from55 to 25. Where is President Obama? Maybe he’s trying to finish his waffles.

From the very beginning of the unrest in Tunisia, the United States has appeared erratic, inconsistent, and contradictory, pontificating and talking loudly while carrying a tiny stick. It also apparently has no clue that Iran, Libya, and Syria are different sorts of autocracies from a dictatorial Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, or the Gulf states.

Ronald Reagan, when faced with the evidence of Gadhafi’s involvement with terrorist acts against US servicemen in Germany years ago, took decisive action and bombed Libya. He silenced Gadhafi and let him know that if he got out of line he’d be gone. Now that’s decisive action and we didn’t hear much from Gadhafi for a long time — like 20 plus years — and our national security interests haven’t been threatened. Decisive action gets world respect.

How long does it take for the Ahmadinejads of this world to take the measure of this man? Not long. The world regimes now see that the US under Obama is a paper tiger. European socialists loathed the United States led by GWB. But Khadafi gave up his nuclear weapons program right after Bush invaded Iraq. That was not coincidental. Khadafi feared Bush, just as he feared Ronald Reagan. No enemy today has given up anything since Obama took his Nobel Prize for Empty Rhetoric.

Obama is dithering about a possible no-fly zone over Libya, and Bill Daley, his chief of staff, is telling military experts outside the administration that they don’t know what they are talking about. A no-fly zone is an aerial blockade that would cripple Khadafi’s ability to use his planes and helicopters to bomb and strafe Libyan rebels. This might remove Khadafi from power, which is what Obama is demanding. Once the President of the United States stakes his and the nation’s prestige on a imperialistic demand for some murderous tin-pot Generalissimo to resign, he has to put up or shut up. Obama is doing neither.

Somehow this administration is slouching toward the worst of both worlds: moral ambiguity and an open-ended, messy sorta-involvement.

Sen. McCain(R) has said that NATO Forces WILL NOT take any action in Libya unless or until there is a U.N. Resolution authorizing the use of force. Russia and China with permanent vetos on the UNSC are opposed to the no fly zone, and Turkey, with similar objections has a veto over major acts of NATO
The question now, is how many Irans will form as a result of America’s inaction? George Bush caught a lot of flak for invading Iraq to keep the region free. How many democracies, besides Iraq’s, fragile as it might be, exist in the region?

Why should we continue to depend on foreign oil from an unstable region? That, by definition, is an unstable policy. When there’s disruption in the region, it leaves the U.S., and other large countries, vulnerable. It disrupts economic recovery. We have huge oil and natural gas reserves that could make a difference in the supply of crude oil in this country, driving prices down. Instead, we put up with shortages and depend on Middle East oil. We’ll soon pay $5 per gallon at our gas pumps.

In diplomacy, as in medicine, the cardinal principle in any crisis is to first do no harm. The Obama administration’s approach to Libya has violated this principle in at least two respects. Having made matters worse for Libya’s democratic opposition, the administration now must be willing to reverse the damage it has done.

First, there’s the arms embargo, imposed by the U.N. Security Council with strong U.S. support two weeks ago. Initially advertised as a measure that would weaken the Gaddafi regime by preventing it from acquiring additional weapons, the State Department this week revealed its view that the U.N. embargo also makes it illegal to provide defensive arms to the opposition.

An evenhanded arms embargo might make sense if the Libyan conflict were between two equally armed sides and we were indifferent to which side won. But the Gaddafi regime is infinitely better-armed than the rag-tag opposition that, having freed half the country, now faces a withering counterattack from the regime’s artillery and combat aircraft. The Obama administration professes to want the opposition to prevail, but by prohibiting arms transfers to both sides, it has almost guaranteed that Moammar Gaddafi will win a drawn-out conflict. ….

The second Obama administration misstep was its support for the U.N. decision to give the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction to prosecute Gaddafi….he and his lieutenants are left with just two choices: surrender to international justice or fight it out in Tripoli. Clearly they have no interest in surrendering, so Libya is now locked into a civil war that will rage until one side wins. ….

Essentially, what the United Nations has done in Libya is deny Gaddafi any attractive alternative to fighting to the death with his opposition, while locking in Gaddafi’s overwhelming military advantage in that fight.

If the rebels want to get Obama’s attention they should first sent him their NCAA Final Four predictions.

Libya supplies Europe with its oil and colonial Europe are the ones that created these artificial states.

The Arab League has backed the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya as rebels continue to be pushed back by Colonel Gaddafi’s forces.

A special meeting in Cairo voted to ask the UN Security Council to impose the policy, diplomats told news agencies.

This prompted me to write a diplomatic cable to the Arab League (If Obama can violate the Logan Act than so can I)

Dear Arab League,

Thank you for your approval of the proposed No Fly Zone over Libyan airspace. Now get off your camels, get into your Soviet surplus aircraft, US supplied F-16’s and AWACs and enforce it.
Sen. McCain(R) has said that NATO Forces WILL NOT take any action in Libya unless or until there is a U.N. Resolution authorizing the use of force. Russia and China with permanent vetos on the UNSC are opposed, and Turkey, with similar objections has a veto over major acts of NATO. Should they pursue this course, what will be the response of the Obama Administration?

Gaddafi: Barakeh Obama is friend

A little perspective foryour perusal: On April17, 2010 Libyan leader praises US president: In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a “friend” and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US.

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.” Uh, Col. Ghaddafi, bus undercarriages DO clear the desert floor, and Obama drives them all OVER the place!!!!

Let Europe and the Arab League handle this to the extent that they can

”What is needed now is Arab intervention using mechanisms of the Arab League and at the same time in accordance with international law,” Omani Foreign Minister Youssef bin Alawi bin Abdullah said in his opening remarks to an Arab League meeting.

Closing down Gadaffi’s AF would not be a major commitment of “blood and treasure.” In fact, it could be a training budget item. The man has about 150 combat aircraft, with an unknown number actually operational, a basic command-and-control structure, and a limited number of dispersal sites. One carrier air group, with its own AWACS capability could either make sure nothing takes off, or destroy key facilities in a 2-day operation, including his SAM infrastructure. Once his people are out of the sky, the rebels might make it on their own, with interdiction of mercenaries an option by the creation of the “no-fly” zone, (an amusing concept for visitors to this flyblown hellhole).

Speaking of blood, UAV attacks at night should catch many units on the ground. Third World air forces are daylight operations.

Fortunately for Obama, cluelessness and naivete are not a crime, or else he would be on permanent lock down. Obama and his administration have been asleep at the wheel since noon on Jan. 20, 2009. He is the most inept, indecisive and utterly directionless “president” we have ever had. He has no focus, and the utter deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan is a good example. Before Obama took over, the situation was promising. When Obama took over, with no clear policy and an utter lack of leadership what has ensued? A Vietnam style quagmire. He tells the enemy when we will leave, which is about the stupidest thing any commander could do. The Afghans may be illiterate and uneducated goat farmers, but they are not stupid. Obama gives them a timeline, so they just maintain the status quo until the last US soldiers and Marines are on the last plane out, and then they resume with fervor. He and his ship of fools administration have taken snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to an art form. In Libya they are only continuing their ongoing record of ineptitude.

And In conclusion, Barack Hussein Obama, Ummm, Ummm Ummm