Friday was no exception, however this one struck me as a little odd. I mean he is the President of the United States and as such is the leader of the free world, but his hearing might be a little off. I think he heard that he is the leader of the whole world.
Congress initially had a hand in this one, in 1994 they passed the Violence Against Women Act. The result of which was a drop in domestic violence by 50%. A re authorization act was being worked on earlier this year and so far has not been passed. So of course PBO doing what he does best decided to just bypass all the mumbo jumbo checks and balancing act and did something about it himself. But why stop in the United States, when he can authorize the act for the entire world? So that's exactly what he did. I swear you can't make this stuff up.
Now of course violence against women should not be present anywhere in this world. Not in the US, not in Northern America, not in the Western Hemisphere and not on this Planet. But in order for an act to have an effect on crimes it must be enforceable. NO PROBLEM, we have a DOD, we already police places for violations on WMD's why not police the world for wife beaters as well? Wait WHAT? PBO didn't you come into office promising the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, I mean I know you haven't made progress in that department, but this act seems to just expand the problem with policing other nations, not solving it.
I must therefore take my gut instinct on this one, either 1. PBO wants the women of the US to see how "proactive" he is in women's rights, and he wants to take credit for putting on a global scale war against violence. (Another broken promise I'm smelling here) Or 2. He wants to expand the logical basis for sending my brothers and sisters of the armed forces into other countries. Or 3. He just wants to umbrella out his power to start a new world order, one in which he gets to swing his pen and change policies.
PBO I have a challenge for you and your all-mighty pen of hope and change. Can you please sign your letter of resignation from the office of the United States Presidency. If you need some help drafting it I would gladly whip up something that you can fine tune with your legal jargon you allegedly picked up at Harvard Law. Or if you want I can proof-read a rough draft you come up with and give some of my own pointers. Trust me I'll clear my calendar for this week in order to get this done for you Mr. President. Heck I'll even throw in a letter of recommendation for the UN if you wish to seek some czar position there so you can feel like the ruler of all nations. I hear they need a new fast talker to head out to Syria.
Until then let's stick to our own nation's issues, like the unemployment rate or the massive debt.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/10/executive-order-preventing-and-responding-violence-against-women-and-gir
11 comments:
In case you missed it, we have ended combat operations in Iraq and soon to end them in Afghanistan get your facts in order before posting please "A"
"A" you forgot to mention the coverts working in Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Yeman, and not to forget IRAQ~ We are still in IRAQ. . .
Now what was that exit strategy in KOSOVO? You know the Clinton war. . . ? What is our exit strategy on the "war on poverty"?
And is OBAMA hiding something by keeping his records secret??? You betcha pal!
No stalking here just asking those questions you refuse to answer. . .
Oh you mean the sleight of hand trick in 2010 where Obama renamed the combat deployments in Iraq to Advise and Assist Brigades? Yeah ask a widow that lost her husband in Iraq in 2011 if her husband died in war or not.
we've had "operators" in most every nation on the planet for the last 50 years, we will continue this policy regardless of who the president. are you suggesting we change our position? your lack of military service excuses your ignorance on such issues however those with experience understand the not so subtle difference between combat and support operations, both dangerous but completely different missions.
please explain what you think the president is hiding in his records? i'm sure you have a theory that's been hatched by the basement dwelling tin foil crowd. while you're explaining ponder what romney's hiding in his tax returns? possibly some unamerican activity in both china and europe, he hates european economic policy but loves the banks in the euro..............i wonder if his deposit's are FDIC insured???
Well Anonymous guess sometimes you should take some of your fellow A.'s advice when spewing facts. I'll just leave it at that, keep reading at FBC and you might learn a thing or two.
thank you mr bridges, you continue to add nothing to the debate. now head back to the basement and the unending task of tin foil hat fabrication. "A"
OK well how about this, I'll point you my latest post which holds the information that you were previously erroneous on. I have served in the Military, five years active duty Marine Corps. Operatives in countries does not always include wars, however when you have body counts coming out of a country that is usually a point positive aspect of war. The Congress holds the power to declare war on another nation, however acts of war such as Pearl Harbor or 911 or the killing of US Soldiers in Iraq during periods of "peace" still happen. These brothers and sisters of mine are being reduced from their rightful status when you say that they did not die in war. Now as far as your personal opinion of me and what I do in my free time is of no consequence to my own personal record. However what it does do is show your true colors of false accusations and close mindedness. Now I do not presume to know who you are, but if I did I would presume that you are a man who has served in this country's military and therefore take personal offense to anyone speaking their mind about current military operations of any nature. I would also presume that you got to where you are mostly by not your own merits, but by rather tearing down others since that seems to be your MO. But what does a little Corporal of Marines know about sizing up someone based on his words?
i dare you to point to any post i've ever made indicating i've reduced a servicemembers status because of their having died in defense of this nation. find it and post it! i simply pointed out the fact that we ended combat operations in iraq and will soon end them in afghanistan.
please look at the ryan budget plan and it's impact on vet's before jumping on the bandwagon of 2 men who have never served 1 day in defense of our nation( one based on "relegious" beliefs) and the other a career politician who's never held a public sector job in his life much less served in the military.
please feel free to point to any "factual" errors i've posted, and to criticize but understand i'm unafraid to engage with you or anyone else. "A"
"A" have you seen the impact on vets the obamacare will have? Death panels, that is the group that will decide who gets and does not get health care.
Just like in the former Soviet Bloc, party hacks (like Democrats) will get special treatment where those of us amongst the dumb-masses well, you know stand in line, wait and die!
Not sure what you are referring too regarding tin-foil hats. Is that the demoncrat canned response to serious questions about BHO's sealed background? Please tell us!
"A" are you off your meds when you refer to us as crazy?
"A" in order to keep you on task while you always deflect serious questions through your state of denial. . . . feel free to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0
May 2, 2011 . . . the fraud in the White House claims "I", "I", "I", "I", perhaps we should call him the narcissist in chief!
"A" are you still off your meds?
UNANIMOUS, are you still taking yours? Your method of argumentation is... well, I'll be kind; it's unlettered. To answer your "point," though, which wasn't a point at all, the Affordable Care Act did not drastically impact veterans' healthcare. Out of 22 million vets, 56% have private health insurance, 37% get their care through the VA, and 7% were uninsured as of February 2012 (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/6289). While the cited article, a portion of which was reproduced in the Journal of American Medicine, cites specific problems related to cost efficiences, the papers author, referenced in the citation, said, "The Affordable Care Act will not affect health care for the majority of veterans differently than it will affect nonveterans, and it will not change eligibility for VA health care, covered benefits, co-payment for services, or how the VA health-care system is administered or operated." So, while there are issues that need to be addressed (and, unless you think that's it's just awesome that 1.54 millions vets are uninsured, you cannot say that the previous sytem was working), your charge of "death panels" is shrill, uneducated, alarmist, and frankly, stupid.
It seems that A is attempting to correct a rather false assumption on your part, Mr. Bridges, that operators in other countries are necessarily participating in wars. They flatly are not. With respect to your 5 years of active duty service, Corporal, I doubt your range of experience in that rank qualifies you to characterize special operations activities worldwide. I'm not saying you don't know anything; just that your military experience is irrelevent to the discussion. You brought it up for emotional reasons. That's a clue to me that you ran out of facts.
It is a horrible thing when a Soldier (Marine, Airman, Sailor) dies in Iraq, but when he does, he does not die in war. He is still a hero, will still be awarded the Purple Heart (if combat-related; a lot of service members die from accidents, a reminder that they have inherently dangerous jobs, whether in combat or not). We take nothing away from those service members or their families by saying that we have ended combat operations in Iraq. And, as a matter of record, the President did end combat operations in Iraq, and " A traditional security cooperation relationship is maintained through the presence of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, which is comprised of a small group of U.S. military and civilian advisors and contractors who work with the Iraqi security forces, helping them to receive, maintain, and operate defense-related articles." (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm)
As to the original post, well, Mr. Bridges, did you read the executive order? If you had, you perhaps would not have needed to speculate on the reasons for it. The intent of the order is to strengthen America's ability to leverage for the promotion of gender equality in foreign policy, and it enhances from a federal perspective the nation's ability to respond to domestic violence, an enhancement which promotes gender equality. Of course, if Congress had passed the Violence Against Women Act, this order wouldn't have been necessary, but President Obama demonstrated that, in the face of a Congress unable to do anything (let's be honest - deadlocked by Republicans), he is nonetheless fully capable of providing leadership. Your original post is shrill and uninformed in light of the text of the order itself (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=40942). Obviously, the President isn't trying to regulate the world. What is equally obvious is that the United States has dealings with the rest of the world. While your ability to see conspiracies where none exists certifies your conservative credentials (and, there's probably a guest spot open for you on "Ancient Aliens"), your failure to get the facts right isn't "fresh brewed," merely boring.
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome as long as they are civil and on the topic.