Striking Syria: Who Cares What The UN Says?

So the same industry that told us that Iraqi invaders were stealing medical units from little prematurely-born babies, leaving them to gasping for air, suffocating, in Kuwaiti hospitals—is now telling us that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. We even here politicians claim that Assad has killed “his own people”—which is possible, but is suspect coming from the same people who call foreign Al Qaeda mercenaries, “Syrian rebels.”

I can’t deny that the story is a real one, but Conservatives need to remember that the headline, “Will Obama wait for UN on Syria strike,” is a diversion from the real issue. (But am I the only one who thinks that Fox News headline is implying to readers that a strike is inevitable sooner or later?). To realize the real issue, let us take a trip down memory lane back to the prehistoric days of March 2012:

Clueless or brazen?:

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: “Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?”

SECRETARY OF “DEFENSE,” LEON PANETTA: “You know, again — our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would — we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress. I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

Fox News’ other headline from yesterday is just as bad, “Obama’s Syria timetable depends on allies” (once again assuming a strike will happen and the only question is when). But at least this article includes a frank admission of the criminal activity our executive can get away with:

“President Obama does not necessarily face the same hurdle in Washington. The War Powers Resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into “hostilities” for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution – the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi’s government.”

Yes, betraying our promises to Qaddafi (and showing potential terrorist Middle Eastern governments they should never trust us when we make promises to not destroy them if they give in to our demands), and sponsoring Jihadists to kill Christians, was another case where Barack Obama broke the law. By all means let us treat that as a precedent for him to do it again.

But the legal point remains, no matter what we think of Libya or Syria. All eyes should be on Congress. We should be hearing about emergency deliberations in Congress. Instead, we’re hearing about the UN.

In other words, we are being told to tolerate treason by our Executive Branch—treason for the sake of murdering people in a country that could never possibly threaten us. According to our news media, it is no big deal that our president is usurping Congressional authority to risk World War III with Russia and China.

We are ruled by dangerous criminal lunatics who are going to hurt us in the name of “protecting American interests.”