Obama's Illegal War Written by Chip Wood

I’m so mad about Libya that, in my mother’s inimitable phrase, I could chew nails and spit bullets. And no, I’m not talking about our pusillanimous leader in the White House, who can’t even get his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense on the same page. I’ll get to that bunch of dishonest incompetents in a moment.

No, what set me over the top was what is supposed to be the nation’s most influential conservative publication, the Wall Street Journal. In a series of articles and editorials, this once-proud bastion of Americanist values has become nothing but a shill for neoconservative empire-building.

Did you see their scolding of Haley Barbour last week? They were furious at the Mississippi Governor and potential Presidential candidate for not standing four-square behind our military action against the Gadhafi regime. What dastardly deed did Barbour commit? Let me quote what he said and you decided if the Journal editorialist was right in getting so outraged:

What are we doing in Libya? We have to be careful about getting into nation-building exercises, whether it’s in Libya or somewhere else. After all, we’ve been in Afghanistan 10 years.

Does that make you want to stand up and shout treason?!? That seems to have been the reaction at the paper’s Wall Street offices. And they didn’t mind lecturing our lawmakers on what the “responsible” (their word, not mine) response to this crisis should be:

The goals of Republicans ought to be to prod Mr. Obama to push for a faster resolution that ends with the toppling of Gadhafi and his sons from power.

Excuse me, but may I ask why?

Why on earth should this country spend millions of dollars, risk hundreds of our servicemen’s lives and end up killing and maiming innocent women and children (and some adult men who admittedly aren’t so innocent) for “regime-change” in Libya? What the heck business is that of ours?

According to the Wall Street Journal, “the credibility of U.S. power is essential to maintaining our influence in [the] Middle East.”

I’m sorry, but this is the same sort of “make-the-world-safe-for-[our-version-of]-democracy” that led to the ruinous wars of the 20th Century. Have we learned nothing from the past?

According to our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created, the only people who can order our men and women to go to war are the people’s representatives in the U.S. Congress. It is Congress, and only Congress, that has the duty, the right, and the legal obligation to make that decision.

Yet our President is more guided by what the moral lepers in the Arab League and the United Nations think than our elected representatives here at home.

Without a declaration of war, U.S. military actions in Libya are unconstitutional. Period. In a saner world, Congress would be drawing up the articles of Obama’s impeachment as you read this.

But no, that’s not what our empire-building elitists want. We’re supposed to be the policeman of the world. Or to quote that same odious Journal editorial again:

One reason to intervene in Libya is to show the Assads and Ahmadinejads that the West is willing and able to act against tyrants who slaughter their own people.

Oh, yeah? Then what about the genocide in Rwanda, which thus far has claimed the lives of more than one million innocent men, women, and children? Many thousands of these sad victims suffered the most bestial indignities, including repeated rape and massive torture, before they were slain. Have you heard Obama mutter one word of protest, or send one rifle or bullet, to assist any of the Africans there for whom he would be expected to feel some sympathy? What a bunch of lying hypocrites we have ruling over us!

And yet the Wall Street Journal editorialist has the unmitigated gall to chastise the Governor of Mississippi with these words:

Mr. Barbour’s glib resort to this trope of the isolationist left suggests he hasn’t thought very hard, if at all, about foreign policy.

So there you have it, folks. Unless you’re willing to support illegal military action, you’re some sort of boobus Americanus, to use H.L. Mencken’s favorite phrase. Well, count me among the people who haven’t yet bought the liberal-CFR line that war is peace, bad is good, wrong is right — and it is our solemn duty to use our money and our Marines to intervene in every country around the globe that doesn’t behave as we think it should.

This is madness. And it’s got to stop.

Say It in Song

Let’s try to end this grim account of an even grimmer story with a smile. I’m sure many of you remember The Kingston Trio. They were perhaps the most famous folk group of the ’50s and ’60s. I don’t think any of the original members are still performing today, but I believe there’s a group somewhere with the same name, singing all of their old hits.

Back in 1962, the trio (Bob Shane, Dave Guard, and Nick Reynolds) released a song that I thought was weird, even for those very weird times. Anyone remember “The Merry Minuet”? You can still find a performance on YouTube. The structure of the song was strange, too. After singing one line, the group then sort of hummed for a bit; then sang another line; then hummed some more.

Printing the lyrics won’t convey how funny this all sounded, but let me try. Here are the first eight lines of the song:

They’re rioting in Africa,

They’re starving in Spain;

There’s hurricanes in Florida

And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls;

The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles,

Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch.

And I don’t like anybody very much!

I think it was Nick Reynolds who blurted out that last line. (But if I’m wrong, I’m sure an alert reader will correct me.) On the recording I have, much laughter followed that declaration.

Anyway, after describing all of the terrible things that were happening all over the world — and remember, folks, this was 49 years ago; isn’t it amazing how little has changed since 1962? — the trio ended on what purported to be a note of optimism:

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud

For man’s been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.

And we know for certain that some lucky day

Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away!

More laughter followed that rather grim description of “some lucky day.” The song then ended with the following prediction:

They’re rioting in Africa,

There’s strife in Iran.

What nature doesn’t do to us

Will be done by our fellow man.

I’ll have more to say next week to “our fellow man” about the people who are misleading and betraying us. In the meantime, stand up for what you know in your heart is right, and condemn the illegal and dangerous course our President has set this country on, both at home and abroad.

Chip Wood was the first news editor of The Review of the News and also wrote for American Opinion, our two predecessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of Personal Liberty Digest, where his Straight Talk column appears weekly. This article first appeared in PersonalLiberty.com

Steve makes the point that I have made all along. The President simply needs to present documentation that the American people have asked for. You know, I think it is funny how this topic has exploded over the past couple of weeks. Many people think that anybody, including Donald Trump are right wing radcials simply for asking questions. Well, there you are wrong. Peole also think those that question Obama on the Birth Certificate issue are biggots. Frankly that is an insult. It has nothing to do with being black. Give people credit. This has nothing to do with not liking President Obama. This has to do with the President of the United States not being required in the first place to present simple information. This has to do with him covering up something. This has to do with keeping those that serve our country accountable for their actions. Odds are there is nothing to all of this, but until President Obama steps to the plate and presents what is asked for, I am going to question it.

Brian (AKA docforchrist)

By Steve Farrell

The to-the-point question — Where's the Birth Certificate? and for that matter, why is the President of the United States spending millions on legal teams to block access to it? — has not, and will not go away until the President comes clean and produces the document and proves himself a naturalized citizen of the United States, or until the public furor and legal fallout intensifies to the point that the President finds himself ineligible to run for President in 2012.

There are a growing number of states moving forward legislation that just may cause the latter.

The latest to get on the eligibility bandwagon is Oklahoma. Oklahoma Senate Bill 91 requires presidential primary candidates to prove they are naturalized United States citizens by showing their birth certificates to the election board. On March 14, 2011, the bill passed in the Senate by a 34-10 vote. It goes to the House rules committee meeting next Wednesday.

The applicable part of SB91 as to presidential candidates reads:

The candidates shall ... be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board. A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:

1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;

 

2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;

3. An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or

4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.

Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

And so what's wrong with that? Common sense, right? State Senator Rick Brinkley, R-Owasso, the original author of SB 91, notes: "Last year voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment requiring most voters to to show a photo ID at their polling place." So it makes sense that candidates be held to the same standard, right?

Well, yes, but even a higher standard for such a high office as President of the United States, wouldn't you think? To serve in the military this writer was subject to a vigorous (and expensive) background check to insure I was who I claimed to be. It began with my producing a long form birth certificate. You see, I remember that, for all I had was one of those "Certificates of Live Birth" when I first applied, which had none of the required signatures, and which were too easy to obtain to prove anything about my birth and who I really was, and so the military rejected it, and sent me home that day. They told me to write to New York City and get an original. The same thing would be true for anyone who hopes to join the United States Armed Forces. But back to the background check: I had to detail an incredible amount of information dating back to my birth. They wanted details about every move, every address, why did I move? what jobs did I hold? why did I quit? what schools did I attend? who knew me? who could vouch for me? they wanted details about my parents, siblings, affiliations, travel history, did I ever go to a communist country (a potential disqualifier), etc. And because I was enlisting into a position that would expose me to sensitive security information, the investigators they hired actually went back and checked all this. I believe the cost of the investigation back in those days (early 1980Œs) was approximately $40,000.00.

The background investigation still wasn't complete when I arrived at my first assignment (a year later); and so the unit had to assign me to another office while I waited. Secrets needed to be protected until they could prove who this 23 year old kid was. I understood it then. I still do now.

But, if those were the rules for me, the average soldier, and those are the rules for millions of other average soldiers — I mean a real long form birth certificate just to join the military, and a vigorous background check regarding my entire life to work in secure areas; what about the requirements for the Commander In Chief? You know, the man who has the potential to do the most good or the most harm to our country; the man who has access to all of our nation's greatest secrets; the man who confers with heads of states from all over the world (to include those of enemy states); the man who directs our armed forces into battle; shouldn't the security requirements to know who this man is, to prove who this man is, be equal to, no, far greater than that for the common soldier? Or to put it another way, don't we believe in equality before the law? And as to men like the President, doesn't the wise old Biblical law apply: "Where much is given much is required"?

These are good questions, fair questions, I think. And I think we need to know the answers. Why should there be so much mystery around something so basic, and yet so vital? And, perhaps, more importantly, why, at this late date, are we still tolerating it?

The Moral Liberal asks the President to do the moral thing, the right thing, the sensible thing, and produce his birth certificate and other missing records.

© Steve Farrell