Reaction To President Obama’s Speech On Syria

On the eve of the date that holds solemn remembrances of two tragedies- the first in 2001 where almost three thousand Americans were killed as a result of godless terrorism- and the other in 2012 where four Americans – Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, US Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith- were killed in Benghazi, President Obama attempted a face-saving speech regarding the Syrian crisis.  The crisis includes a number of complexities including an effective resolution to the calamity and whether that resolution should include American intervention.

Many here in America are against US involvement- not because Americans have minimized the atrocities committed by Assad’s factions and the so-called rebels at war against each other, but because the public isn’t convinced of the nobility of the rebels nor the virtue of their intentions.

More to the point, many Americans lack the faith and trust in the moral decision-making of president Obama’s leadership, particularly in the foreign theater.  Americans still have questions regarding the Libyan debacle in which the president and his administration, intentionally lied- and have yet to come clean- to the American people.

Americans still question why the president didn’t support the “green revolution” of the Iranian people in 2009, protesting what they claimed was the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad in lieu of a more secular replacement.

Lastly, Americans took note of how the president publicly called for the removal of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s former president and leader of America’s non-NATO ally in a shortsighted and thoroughly naïve attempt to usher in an “Arab Spring.”  As a result, Egypt has seen a destabilized government, an increased presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and perpetual civil chaos- none of which can be legitimately characterized as “springtime.”

After trying to be on both sides of the issue using diplomacy and military intervention, at the same time, this speech will do very little to change the hearts and minds of Americans toward supporting military intervention in Syria, to change the politics of acting/not acting, or to change the perception of Obama as a credible leader on the world stage.  Equally as important, it will not deter Bashar al-Assad from continuing his slaughter be it chemical weapons or conventional weaponry.

The American people don’t approve of US involvement and statistically, congressional leadership doesn’t approve either.

What remains to be seen- and may ultimately define the remainder of his presidency, is what the president says and does after the congressional delay, especially if it ends with Congress refusing to authorize action.

America should continue to pray for those suffering in Syria.

We should also pray for the president.  He’s going to need it.

Eric Holder Should Resign, But Won’t

choom holder

The calls for Eric Holder’s resignation are not only increasing, they’re growing louder- and for good reason.  Holder has been an extremely divisive individual since his 2009 “nation of cowards” speech at a Justice Department event marking Black History Month.

Since then Eric Holder has-

-made a race-based decision and refused to prosecute Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of the New Black Panther Party for its role in intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 elections;

-sued the state of Arizona in 2010 (and to a certain extent, was successful) to prevent the state from enforcing SB 1070, an anti-illegal immigration law that attempted to do at the state level with the federal government refuses to do at a national level;

-pressured the Defense Department to charge “soldier of Allah” Major Nidal Malik Hasan as a terrorist after he murdered 14 and wounded more than 30 at Fort Hood, while screaming “Allahu Akbar.” Holder (and the Obama administration) characterized the massacre as an episode of “workplace violence” rather than one of domestic terrorism;

-announced that the DOJ would no longer  defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court cases brought against the act, claiming that to do so was “unconstitutional”;

-implicated himself in the “Fast and Furious” gun walking scandal that led to the deaths of border patrol agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata (not including the lives of Mexican citizens lost due to this program). As a result, Holder was held in contempt of Congress for obstruction- refusing to release information regarding the Fast and Furious operation which eventually led president Obama to invoke Executive Privilege regarding said documentation (and in the minds of many, implicated himself in the knowledge of such operation);

-possibly perjured himself by lying under oath during his testimony before the congressional committee investigating his involvement in acquiring a search warrant that allowed his department to search the email and phone records of a FOX News reporter.  Holder told the committee, under oath, that he wasn’t in any way involved only to have evidence surface shortly after that contradicted his sworn statement and confirmed his active involvement in obtaining that warrant.

That Eric Holder has steadfastly refused to resign considering these blatant infractions, or that the president hasn’t “accepted Holder’s resignation” (meaning forced him out) speaks tremendous volumes regarding the moral character of both men.

To be blunt, AG Holder is a rigid ideologue who is a prevaricator who purposely peddles deception; that his dishonesty is saturated in arrogance is particularly unpalatable.

But, as it pertains to president Obama, his silence and lack of public condemnation of Holder’s actions- up to and including the fact he hasn’t dismissed Eric Holder (or for starters, Lois Lerner and Doug Shulman [Steven Miller’s resignation was pre-planned] regarding the IRS’ specific targeting of conservatives and conservative organizations) may be indicative that Obama knew exactly what’s been ongoing at DOJ and the IRS.  Meaning, people in both departments were demonstrating ideological and personal loyalty to the president by following his orders- which is a glaring reason why Obama hasn’t fired them.

Or, it may imply that he didn’t know what was going on with the DOJ and IRS but doesn’t see much wrong in what Holder, Lerner, Shulman have done and thus, his silence equates to passively supporting or condoning the actions and activities of those involved.

Either way, it’s an extremely poor but accurate reflection of the president’s character, personally, but also further discredits his administration when it comes to what they say and do.