Barack Obama may be seriously considering ignoring the debt ceiling and just continue to spend money. 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/breaking-49-house-members-call-investiga

The pattern is becoming all too familiar.  Obama does what he wants, without regard to congress.  He started by appointing all those Czars.  The whole point of the Czars was that they did not require congressional approval.  Then, more recently, he decided to go to war with Libya. Now, it appears that he is prepared to ignore congress with regard to the debt ceiling.

I can almost hear him now. He will declare a financial emergency and say that since congress refused to do the necessary, he is taking action.  The man is fully capable of doing this.  Of course the only action he will consider is continuing to spend money he doesn’t have.  He may also refuse to pay our military, or Social Security, or Medicare.  This is a standard Democratic ploy.  The first things they cut during a time of crisis are the things that really matter.  That is why every time a Democratic leader is confronted with a financial challenge they threaten to cut funds for schools, police officers and fire fighters. 

Congress should call Obama’s bluff.  They should refuse to raise the debt ceiling and demand that Obama spend the available money with the following non-negotiable priorities:  Pay our troops, pay Social Security, pay Medicare, and pay the interest on the debt.  There is more than enough revenue to meet these priorities.  If Obama does that, there is no risk of the U.S. defaulting.  There will be painful cuts, but no financial crisis.  It is extremely important for the Republicans to refuse to raise the debt limit and to also to make sure the American people understand that the decision to default on our debt will be solely the responsibility of President Barack Hussein Obama. 

Obama has not sought or received congressional authority for a lot of things he has done.  George Bush challenged the UN and told them that if they were unwilling to back up their resolutions, they risked becoming irrelevant.  In my personal opinion, the same is true for congress.  If the leaders in the House and the Senate are unwilling to stand up for congressional authority when a President is openly ignoring the constitution, when will they stand up?  Leadership is not standing by meekly while Obama mucks things up beyond repair.

The 4^th of July is an important reminder of the courage it took for our founding fathers to stand up to King George.  It is easy to forget that a significant portion of the population at the time thought this was a major mistake.  They were wrong.  As Barry Goldwater once said: 

extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in resisting tyranny is no virtue.

TDM

Re-read my post:  HUMA DINGER.  Then read the following article:

 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58094.html

Coincidence?  

TDM

If we as a country are incapable of discerning the difference between a man of character and honor, like George Bush, and man who demonstrates only arrogance and incompetence, like Barack Obama, we are doomed.  Following is a video clip of George Bush riding with the wounded warriers on a bike ride:

I will include no clip from Barack Obama, because there is none available.  He has never done anything remotely similar to this.  We had a man of courage and honor as President.  He personally visited the families of soldiers killed in action.  He never allowed the media to cover this.  Note how he instantly remembers some of these guys.  Contrast that with Obama who couldn’t even remember a Medal of Honor recipient.

In my opinion, we failed to appreciate what we had.  A lot of people are longing for another Ronald Reagan.  I frankly would be thrilled to find another George Bush.  He was not the best public speaker, but this was and is a real leader.  We would do well to find another one just like him.

TDM

Blagojevich was convicted of virtually every account.  That is understandable, since it was pretty obvious that he was guilty.  But the real question is whether it ends here.  Unfortunately, the main stream media is likely to just move on, ignoring the obvious and repeated connections with Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel and even Jesse Jackson, Jr.

It is hard to predict what Blagojevich will do.  Personally, he has little left to lose, but that is not true of his family.  He will almost certainly be encouraged to keep his mouth shut and do his time.  Since there is a tradition in Illinois of Governors being convicted of felonies, we already know what to expect.  Governor Ryan was sentenced to six-and-a-half years.  He has already served three years of his sentence.  He is trying to get an early release because his wife is terminally ill.  Ryan is a guest of the Federal Correction Institute in Terra Haute, Indiana.  My guess is that Rod Blagojevich will be his new neighbor.

It would appear that Governor Ryan’s corruption was much more serious than that of Blagojevich’s. 

 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192019,00.html

 Blagojevich was convicted of attempting to commit a crime while Ryan had actually done the deed.  That would seem to indicate a shorter sentence.  However, Blagojevich has been a pretty high profile case, so he may get a tougher sentence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it just seemed like the prosecutor went out of his way to avoid involving either Obama or Emanuel.  This is the same guy who spent a fortune pursuing Gordon Libby for perjury.  No one even accused Libby of lying about Valerie Plame.  He was accused of perjury because he said that Tim Russert told him about Valerie Plame and Russert said he didn’t.  [Note: Andrea Mitchell said that everyone at NBC knew about Valerie Plame, which would have included Russert.]  Russert testified that he took no notes regarding the conversation with Libby.  Libby was the top aid to Dick Cheney.  Seems hard to believe an experienced newsman like Russert would have had a conversation with him without taking any notes.  Later, when Andrea Mitchell realized her comments made Russert look like a liar, she changed her tune. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/10771

She was not allowed to testify at the Libby trial:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/libby-trial-live-andrea-m_b_41121.html

It sure seems like Mr. Fitzgerald is quite selective on who he targets.

Blagojevich was guilty as sin, but he just wasn’t the brightest bulb in the bunch.  He must have been either really desperate or really dumb to carry on these types of conversations over the phone.  In any event, Blagojevich is now a convicted felon.  He probably deserves his fate, but it is unlikely that he was the only fish swimming in this cesspool of corruption.  My guess is that the big fish are the ones who got away. 

TDM

The following article was on Drudge.  Obviously I cannot confirm the information, but this seems very consistent with what we know from other sources:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/24/exclusive_top_us_admiral_admits_we_are_trying_to_kill_qaddafi

The indication that the real plan is to kill Gaddafi is hardly news.  But what is alarming is the report that Obama plans to send in troops on the ground after Gaddafi is gone.  It is easy to see this fitting nicely into Obama’s delusional world.  We are currently in a war because they aren’t very good at shooting back.  We aren’t really trying to kill Gaddafi, we are just blowing up every place we consider potential hide-outs.  Then the ultimate plan unfolds.  We will send in our troops, but that also won’t be a war, because Gaddafi will already be dead.  If you can understand this logic, you must be a Democrat!

 TDM

The Obama Presidency is over.  Oh he will still remain in office, for at least a while, but his Presidency is over.  The action taken by the House of Representatives today is a public vote of no confidence.  It is an announcement to the world that Obama no long has the support of the U.S. congress.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/24/116459/house-defeats-libya-measure-295.html

I cannot find a single example of this ever happening to a U.S. President.  Even during his darkest hours, this did not happen to Richard Nixon.  Bill Clinton was literally impeached by the House and put on trial in the Senate, but he still had the support of congress with regard to foreign policy.  Even when he ordered bombing attacks on Iraq literally on the eve of the impeachment vote, congress supported him.  The reason is that congress knows that taking this kind of action is a fatal blow to a President’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

There were some strong voices in congress trying desperately from letting this happen.  This included people like Marco Rubio, Joseph Leiberman, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.  None of them supported Obama’s foreign policy, but all were concerned over the impact of such a public rebuke.

This is totally Obama’s fault.  The congress would have supported him on Libya, if he had only bothered to ask.  But by his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the constitutional responsibilities of congress, he forced them to confront him.  This is a sad day for Obama, but it is even a sadder say for America.  I can’t really blame congress, because Obama left them no choice.  They either let him assume dictatorial powers or they destroy him.  They chose to destroy him.

This puts us at grave risk.  Every nation on this earth and every enemy of the United States now knows that we do not have a President of the United States.  We still have a person with that title, but he no longer has the authority required to do the duty.

I really don’t know where we go from here, because this is uncharted territory.  My guess is that Obama will just go on as before, pretending nothing happened.  That, of course, would be the worst case scenario.  Ultimately it will result in even more serious constitutional confrontations.  An honorable man would resign.  Nixon did not resign because he thought he could not win, he resigned because he acknowledged that he has lost the political power to do his job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/080974-3.htm

Mr. Nixon said he decided he must resign when he concluded that he no longer had “a strong enough political base in the Congress” to make it possible for him to complete his term of office.

Obama has lost the political power to do his job.  But I don’t think he is capable of understanding that or admitting it.  In the meantime there is a leadership vacuum at the top of the federal government.  No matter how you feel about Barack Obama, this is a sad day for America.

TDM

At a time when the economy is in shambles, we are drowning in debt and even Obama is talking about cutting expenses, the Marines are spending a fortune preparing for an amphibious landing on a hostile shore.

 http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/17/marine.corps.exercise/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2

One has to ask why? We all know the history of the marines landing on hostile shores. There certainly was a time in our nation’s past when this was a critical need. But, things have really changed since then. I have looked at the globe and tried to figure out where, exactly, such an invasion might make sense. The only obvious answer is Libya. The following article is interesting. I don’t know these guys and do not know the credibility of this report:

http://www.infowars.com/huge-marine-drill-confirms-ground-invasion-of-libya/

Obama is trying to figure a way to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, our efforts in Libya thus far have been specifically designed to avoid using U.S troops. We are primarily sending in high tech bombers and drones to do the job. Even Obama admits that we are conducting the war primarily against targets incapable of shooting back.

If the President was someone other than Barack Obama, I would consider this to be nonsense. Why on earth would we consider invading Libya? We have already wasted about $1 billion bombing the crap out of the place and Gaddafi is still there. Congress appears to be on the verge of cutting off funds in response to Obama’s refusal to explain what we are trying to accomplish. Public support is low and dropping like a stone. I can’t imagine congress being supportive of sending in the Marines. But Obama doesn’t seem to really care whether congress approves anything or not. If this report is accurate, and the sources seem to be pretty reliable, we already have troops in Libya and Obama is ready to up the ante. This would put a whole new perspective on the showdown in congress regarding the war powers act. I have tried to imagine the motivation for being so determined to intervene in Libya. I can understand why France and Germany wanted to intervene; they are after the oil. So I did some research to see who else would want Gaddafi gone. The answer is easy: Saudi Arabia. In 2003 some Saudi dissidents were caught in a plot to assassination Crown Prince Abdullah by shooting grenades and other nasty things into his apartment. It turned out they had been recruited by Libyan agents and offered $1 million as an incentive. The Saudis were not impressed! Keep that in mind when reading the following article. Is there any evidence of Saudi influence here?

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_muslim_brotherhood_and_weiner.html

There are also rumors that Obama’s Harvard education was funded by a Saudi Prince:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug

Is it a coincidence that a President with a strong reluctance to use military force suddenly confronts his own congress to attack Libya, a country that is no possible threat to us? You decide! I must admit, I have no answer. This makes no sense. I personally find it very hard to believe we are seriously considering sending troops into Libya.  But the exercise is happening and it is a massive undertaking. History shows us that our military does not usually engage in these types of training exercises unless someone feels this is necessary. So are we just wasting a lot of time and money preparing for an amphibious assault that no one anticipates or are we preparing for a real event? Either way, this is worthy of our attention.

TDM

The following article from front page magazine is extremely interesting, in view of myprevious article regarding Anthony Weiners wife:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/17/why-is-weiners-muslim-brotherhood-wife-not-resigning/2/

I have no way of know how much of this is accurate.  It does, at a minimum, explain why someone should be asking really obvious questions.

TDM

The situation in Libya is deteriorating rapidly.  It is clear that NATO went in half-cocked with no clear mission and has only succeeded in wasting at least $1 billion and countless lives with no tangible results.  They thought they would lob in a few bombs and Gaddafi would fold like a cheap umbrella.  They were wrong.  Now NATO is running out of planes, ships and ammunition.  Our typically limp wristed European allies, not Gaddafi, are the ones ready to fold. 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/analysis-nato-first-blink-gaddafis-war-nerves-102552889.html

 Obama is trying to explain to Congress why he made the decision to surrender U.S. foreign policy to France so we could carry the heavy lifting on another French fiasco.  This is beyond bad.  It is one thing to thumb your nose at congress and the U.S. Constitution so you can play at war.  It is a whole new level of incompetence when you stupidly turn command over to the French and expect anything other than an embarrassing surrender.   At this rate, we will be lucky to just find a way out of this mess.

In the ultimate irony Dennis Kucinich, who tried to impeach George W. Bush with regard to the war in Iraq, just praised Bush in comparison to Obama.  Kucinich pointed out, correctly, that unlike Barack Obama; Bush did consult congress and ask for authorization before going to war.  Now when an extreme left wing guy like Kucinich makes this kind of comment it is proof positive that Obama has lost the extreme left wing base of the Democratic Party. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166789-criticizing-obama-kucinich-credits-bush-for-asking-congress-to-go-war

The latest poll results show public support for our military intervention is Libya is evaporating:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/184288.html

 Obama desperately needs support, either from Democrats or Republicans.  But, he is making it nearly impossible for anyone to give him that support.  In his latest move, he is refusing to give congress any more information:

 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166871-white-house-says-libya-report-should-suffice

 Obama’s political support is leaking like a sieve.  One of the few people still supporting our efforts in Libya is John McCain.  Yet while McCain continues to support the mission, in doing so he does even more damage to Obama:

 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/166883-mccain-slams-obama-yet-supports-libya-effort-

“The administration made an announcement that will strike most of my colleagues as a confusing breach of common sense,” said McCain, referring to a 32-page report released by the White House that argues the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because it doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

“The administration sought the blessings of the United Nations, the Arab League and NATO before using force in Libya but still has not sought a similar authorization or statement approval from the representatives of the American people,” McCain said.

The accumulated consequences of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration’s policy.”

In other words, McCain is acknowledging that Obama is an incompetent boob, but argues we still need to support him because losing to Gaddafi would be even worse.  When your friends are talking like this, you don’t need enemies. 

Today this situation has exploded.  Both Democratic and Republican leaders are stunned and outraged.  The problem is that Obama has lied one too many times.  Those of us who have been paying attention already know that Obama is the liar in chief.  He lied about his personal history.  He lied about his relationship with William Ayers.  He lied about his relationship with Reverend Wright.  He lied about his home purchase.  He lied about his health care plan.  He lied about his political appointees.  He lied about the economy.  He lied about the jobs he created.  But the main stream media just continued to give him a free pass.  But now he has lied about a war in a way that is beyond ridiculous.  The following article explains this very well:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-17-03-14-56

 We have got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day,” Boehner told reporters. “We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi’s compound. It doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the notion.

“Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me,” Webb said in an interview.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., called the claims “really totally bizarre.” Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said telling Congress and Americans “that this is not a war insults our intelligence. I won’t stand for it and neither will my constituents.”

Obama has put himself into a remarkably similar box as Anthony Weiner.  He has been caught in a bald faced lie.  No one, and I mean no one, is even arguing that Obama is telling the truth.  Even Nancy Pelosi, who is trying to support him, said the following:

Countering the criticism, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Obama did not need congressional authorization, but she acknowledged the congressional frustration.

“It’s like a marriage,” Pelosi said. “You may think you’re communicating, but if the other party doesn’t think you’re communicating, you’re not communicating enough

Some Democrats wanted to impeach George Bush for lying about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  But the problem was that they could not find one single example of where Bush lied.  Senator Jay Rockefeller looked at every single statement made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell prior to the war and could not find anything that was inconsistent with the intelligence.  The best he could even offer was that on a couple occasions  Cheney and Rumsfeld “exaggered” the risk.  Yet now we have a President who has lied repeatedly and this time it is really easy to prove.  Which is worse, lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when most people in both parties already believed they existed, or lying about sending troops into combat by pretending there is no combat?

Six weeks ago I would have said that there was no possibility that anyone would even consider impeaching Obama.  Republicans sure don’t want to do that, because they are still smarting over the backlash from the Clinton impeachment.  Democrats don’t want to do that, because Obama is one of their own.  Yet Obama’s stubborn refusal to deal with reality and his obvious lies could end up forcing one or even both of them to do the unthinkable.  At some point, if things continue on this path, there may be no other option.  Both Republicans and Democrats have been saying that Obama has violated the law and is ignoring the constitution.  Now they are saying he is lying about it.  Someone is bound to ask the obvious question:  “if this is true, why aren’t you doing something about it?” 

TDM

President Obama has adopted a bizarre and convoluted legal explanation for violating the War Powers Act.  He cannot be held responsible, as Commander-in-Chief, for leading us into war because he isn’t leading.  He feels he doesn’t need authority from our congress, because he isn’t the one who made the decision to intervene in Libya; that was NATO.  He also believes that he has avoided legal responsibility for sending our troops into combat because he also yielded command and control to NATO.  Since NATO, not the U.S., is in charge, he isn’t responsible because our troops are only working in a “support” role.  It’s bad enough that he blames Bush for everything, now he’s blaming NATO!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/166771-war-powers-standoff-escalates-over-libya

The White House leaked its report to the New York Times before it bothered to send it to congress.   Speaker Boehner is not amused:

“If the White House intends to assuage Congress’s concerns, they might want to share the report with Congress before leaking it to The New York Times,” the aide said

Obama is openly defying congress, yet I will be very surprised if they press the issue.  They should be outraged.  How much damage are they willing to accept before they stop this man from shredding our constitution?  One Senator who gets it is Rand Paul:  Following are his comments on this subject:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/obamas-unconstitutional-libyan-war/

Rand Paul shreds Obama’s primary argument that this isn’t a military action by the United States because we are only acting in a support rule:

Thus far, the United States has provided 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships and 50 percent of the planes in this Libyan mission.

It looks like the only thing we aren’t providing is leadership!  Obama is pretending this isn’t war, so he can justify ignoring our own congress while our military is literally taking orders from a French Canadian Admiral.  As soon as Admiral Bouchard took command he explained that NATO wasn’t taking sides it was just trying to protect civilians: 

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/nato-commander-denies-taking-sides-in-libya-conflict-498996.html

(This sounds more French than Canadian to me!) 

Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems like a lot more civilians have been killed as a result of this military action than would have been killed if we had not intervened.  Obama is claiming that our intervention saved “thousands of lives.”  This is remarkably similar to the claim that his fiscal policy has saved millions of jobs and is equally lacking in credibility.

If we going to do this kind of stuff can we at least man up and admit it.  Our military is caught between a Barack and a hard place.  We have no mission.  We have no goal.  We have no exit strategy and our Commander in Chief is primarily concerned about avoiding being confused with a leader.  That is one thing he got right.  No intelligent person would confuse Barack Obama with a leader.  Folks, it just doesn’t get any worse than this.

 TDM