Dr. Evil Soros And The Libya Bombing

Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/03/23/soros-fingerprints-libya-bombing ^

 

By Aaron Klein Philanthropist billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. The activist who founded and coined the name of the doctrine, "Responsibility to Protect," sits on several key organizations alongside Soros. Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions.

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...

Posted by Ronbo

A Barack Obama, Samantha Power, Cass Sustein, George Soros, and Libya connection to ... Israel?

Topics: Political News and commentaries

In this 40 minute show by Glenn Beck (via Ted Belman) he clearly sets out that George Soros, Samantha Power, Obama and the UN have conspired to promote "Responsibility to Protect" as a means of defeating Israel.


Interestingly, the concept of Obama/Samantha Power/Cass Sustein/George Soros having the idea that we are chained to a genocidal power by aligning with Israel is not unfounded ... and has actually been stated by Power herself. In other words, Beck is actually right on target here. Stanley Kurtz talked about Obama, Powers, Libya, and 'RtoP' in his piece at NRO today.

Posted by Richard

A complex action in Libya

President Barack Obama

In January, political editors looking ahead to this weekend in March might have thought President Barack Obama’s trip to Brazil would lead news coverage. In fact, they might already have been preparing a response to the inevitable criticism that Obama’s trip would cost too much. But it’s been an exceptionally busy few months in world events, and Obama’s trip was overshadowed by the biggest foreign policy decision of his presidency to date: the authorization of allied military action to support United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Support for a no-fly zone had been relatively strong among politicians and observers before the action. Senators like John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), John McCain (R-Arizona), and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) all expressed support for a no-fly zone, and even New York Times columnist Nick Kristof got his hawk on in a column two weeks ago. But after airstrikes began Saturday, opponents began to come out of the woodwork. While Obama called for Libya’s leader, Muammar Qaddafi, to step down, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that Qaddafi might remain in power despite the action. That contradiction led Politico – and politicos – to ask what the ultimate goal in Libya was.

More important, though, was the emerging frustration among Congressmen – though far from universal – that Obama didn’t appropriately consult Congress before beginning the action. Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that much of Congress wasn’t asking for explicit Congressional authorization of the action, as that would set a precedent for all military actions to require Congressional support. Still, perennial dark horse presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) called the action “an impeachable offense.”

Meanwhile, the next step for the military action is a long-term enforcement of the no-fly zone, but exactly who will be enforcing the no-fly zone remains a point of contention among the allies. Obama made clear his intention to keep the no-fly zone a NATO operation, with the United States taking less than a leadership role. French and German representatives, however, remain concerned about NATO leadership, though their alternative appears to be unclear.

With all these moving parts, Obama faces several challenges as military action goes forward. How – and whether – he gets his house in order will shape his foreign policy actions for at least the remainder of his first term.

by ROBBIE OTTLEY  

Libyan War, Quickly To The Backburner

As deceptive as the activist old media can be, nobody will accuse them of being total idiots. Barack Obama has stepped in it and the media will do everything it can to hide the smell.

They are hoping and praying (if they pray) for other stories that can knock the Libyan War off the headlines—they know the longer it goes, the more embarrassing it is for Dear Leader. Every headline on this war makes him look more and more the hypocrite. Eventually they will try to blame this on Bush, if they haven’t already.

Take the crackup of the coalition in the conflict, Germany has bailed and the story is ignored. This is sort of a biggie, there folks. There is confusion amongst the countries over who is in charge. Are the French, British, the Americans, who knows? Since Obama insists that America is just another country on the map with a flag, there can be no Alpha Dog leading this war, thus, we see collapse in the coalition that the media so praised from day one.

The media had a lot on its collective plate on Wednesday. Liz Taylor died and there was more fear and anxiety to spread over the nuclear plants in Japan (BTW, on that front, the media has gotten more of those stories wrong than they have gotten right, but we knew that from the start.) Then there was another cute baby video to show from YouTube. All sorts of big stories to tell—who cares that Germany has told Obama they are bailing and virtually the only place you can find this info is in the British newspapers.


Context, something the media ignores when they choose to, has also left with the Germans. The activist old media has virtually ignored the statements of Obama and Biden and other Democrats during the Iraq War. They are everywhere. The media and their Democrats (who voted twice for the Iraq War) blasted Bush incessantly for supposedly not going to Congress for a vote and for not getting UN approval in Iraq. For the record, Bush did have NATO on his side, but the UN would’ve never given approval on Iraq because the head of the UN’s son was part of the Oil For Bombs program with Saddam. It was actually called Oil For Food, but since there was so little food involved, it was actually oil for bombs and this was a Brilliant Bill Clinton program. This was the plan whereby France, Germany, and the UN traded oil with Saddam for supposed food for his people. Instead, unbeknownst to the world, this was not exposed for what it really was until America went into Iraq and in the process uncovered quite possibly the largest financial fraud the world has seen.

The activist old media is ignoring the confusion of the mission on the part of the White House right now. Obama has said that Gadafi must go, while US military officials have said that this is not about regime change. Those sound bites are easy to find, they’ve happened in the past week. They don’t even have to go way back to 2003-2007 to find the inconsistencies by the Democrats on war policies. This is a layup and the media is missing the shot—intentionally.

March Madness continues.

Video: Riot breaks out at Burger King

And I do mean riot, as in absolutely primal:
From WJHG via drudge: Video shows bikini brawl in PCB Burger King 

A cell phone camera captured the action in the Panama City Beach Burger King on Front Beach Road Saturday, as a crowd of tourists nearly rioted at the restaurant.

Employees dialed 9-1-1 for help, as one bikini-clad woman, later identified as Kimesia Smith of Montgomery, Ala., jumped up on the counter and threw a charity coin jug at employees, and 3 of Smith's friends also began throwing napkins, utensils, and trays throughout the location.

Nearly rioted? Nearly rioted? What would it take to remove that qualifier?

crime

Bullshit Phrase Of The Day

Posted  by Bob Parks

I guess it would be easier to mute the liberal anti-war left’s criticism of our involvement in Libya if you just didn’t have to call it what it clearly is.

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said. “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

This from the very president who as a candidate mockingly used the phrase, “just words”.

This entry was posted in Bob Parks and tagged Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, kinetic military action, Libya. Bookmark the permalink.

← Hypocrite Of The Day

Did Hillary Clinton set up Obama for a historic foreign policy blunder?

Trusting the Clintons is like trusting a snake that has teeth that it won't bite you. You do so at your own risk. Obama's true believers believe Barry is the smartest person ever to become president. Of course, that should be taken at face value then laughed at. If I was running for president, I wouldn't be stupid enough to pick someone I knew who hated me and make him or her my Secretary of State. Well, that is of course what Barry did. Now it looks like that decision has come back to hunt him. Just as liberals claimed that Saddam Hussein was isolated and wasn't a threat in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya prior to three weeks ago was the same situation. It wasn't until these so called rebels in Libya started protesting against Gaddafi that he started acting out against them. Hillary Clinton stressed the point that Gaddafi was killing his own people, and that he needed to be removed. Actually to Obama's credit, he wasn't concerned with removing Gaddafi at that time. He had to have known that any use of military action by him to try and remove Gaddafi would make him look like the biggest hypocrite around for his then blasting of former president Bush over the use of the military in Iraq. Somehow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the Office of Multilateral and Human Rights Director Samantha Power convinced Barry to take the lead in enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya. There's a difference between taking advice on doing something and being pressured into doing something. Obama clearly was pressured into launching air strikes. So much for the Commander In Chief having a spine of steel. Because of his actions in Libya, Obama may have caused himself irreversible damage next year in his re election bid. He's lost the majority support of independent voters, but now he has lost a certain percentage of his die hard core kook supporters as well. I still have to wonder did Hillary set this up. Hillary came out last week and said that she wouldn't be serving a second term as Secretary of State. I know she isn't planning on challenging Obama next year, but who knows what she is thinking about possibly 2016. Prior to the situation in Libya, Obama's foreign policy could be described as pathetic. Now, it can definitely be described as weak to clueless. Hillary has painted Obama into such a corner, there aren't enough words on Obama's teleprompter that can correct the situation for him. He was so concerned with getting the UN's approval for the air strikes, he didn't even bother briefing congress on what he was planning. That has gotten members of both parties ticked off at him. This is what Democratic Congressman Dennis "The Red Menace" Kucinich of Ohio had to say.



Dennis of course stopped short of calling for Obama's impeachment, surprise, surprise. As I said, a lot of the true believers are very upset over the air strikes. The best person to speak out against Obama actions in Libya should be "himself".


Even if Obama is able to sucker NATO, the French or Great Britan into taking the lead in this "operation". The ultimate outcome could lead to one of if not the biggest foreign policy misjudgments in a century, even surpassing Carter and Iran. When the riots first started in Egypt, progressives didn't really ask themselves the question of "who really are the protesters"? All they cared about was that they were against Mubarak, so they had to be just seeking freedom. There are stories coming out that are showing that Islamic hardliners had a role in the organization of the protests. With Libya, there are growing concerns that Al Qaida is embedded to an unknown degree into the rebel movement if not in charge of the movement fighting against Gaddafi forces. So lets say that the rebels defeat Gaddafi, and it turns out that Al Qaida was behind the rebel movement. Obama would be responsible for the Islamic terrorist organization gaining a stronghold in an oil producing country bordering Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida has come out in support of the rebels. Gaddafi isn't a Muslim extremist. Yes, he is a kook but not a Muslim fanatic one. Al Qaida didn't dare try and face off against Gaddafi out in the open, because support would be on the side of Gaddafi due to the people seeing Al Queda as being the bigger threat then Gaddafi ever could be. So Al Qaida decides to use the Trojan horse approach of dressing themselves up as Libyan rebels who only are looking for" freedom" from the oppressive rule of Gaddafi. The old saying goes that sometimes the cure can cause more pain and suffering to a person then the actual illness. Way to go Barry. I said Obama was the second term of Carter for a reason.

Posted by Alpha Conservative Male

Poll: Obama beats Gingrich, Palin – in N.C.

A new poll shows President Barack Obama leading several potential Republican rivals in North Carolina – a state he won in 2008.

The Public Policy Polling survey showed:

47% Obama, 42% Newt Gingrich.

45% Obama (D), 45% Mike Huckabee.

51% Obama (D), 40% Saray Palin.

44% Obama (D), 42% Mitt Romney.

The sampling of 584 likley voters was taken March 17-20. The margin of error was 4.1 percent.

Posted by Chris Grygiel

Members of Congress Question Administration’s Libya Policy, Call for Congressional Hearings and Debate

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), in a letter to President Barack Obama, called on the administration to “provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”  Boehner provided the president with a list of questions which he believes must be answered including the “contradiction” between the stated goal of the administration — Muammar Gadhafi‘s removal from power– and that of the U.N. resolution.  On Wednesday, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee, called for congressional hearings on the mission in Libya in a letter to the Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry (D-MA): “In my judgment, hearings on Libya are especially vital because the Obama Administration did not consult meaningfully with Congress before initiating military operations. Members have not yet had an opportunity to question the Administration on its policy goals or its diplomatic and military strategy.”

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) also expressed concerns that Obama’s actions in Libya may violate the constitution given the lack of Congressional debate and approval for this level U.S. military involvement.  Meanwhile, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) voiced support for the President’s actions in Libya and stated that given the limited nature of the conflict and support of international community, he believes Senators would support the mission in Libya if they were to vote on it.

Update: Senator John Thune (R-SD) argued that President Barack Obama did not need the consent of Congress before ordering U.S. military to attack forces and military installations controlled by Gadhafi and will only need to do so if the fight becomes protracted: “You have to reserve to your commander in chief the authority to act in emergencies.”

March 24th, 2011 by Naureen