“Look to the Constitutions of South Africa or Canada, Not to the US Constitution”

Ginsburg didn’t stop there, she let the interview know exactly what she thinks of the United States Constitution, in particular, while visiting a country that denounces us and burns our flag. (Emphasis LCs)

It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Sure, Ginsburg notes some positives about the US Constitution but the parts I highlighted are certainly odd for someone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and has a primary duty to do so as their job. It’s obvious Ginsburg doesn’t think much of our Constitution by referring other nations to look elsewhere as a guide for writing one.

Following is the interview, if you can stomach it, with the highlights of the transcript above. (03:46)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

No Republican’s in Congress have the intestinal fortitude to start proceedings for impeachment of Barack Obama, or at the very least, begin legal proceedings against VP Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta. Why you ask? Here is an article printed in the Wall Street Journal by Leif Babin a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago.

*****************

America’s premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven’t remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration’s lack of discretion was on display again at last week’s State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: “Good job tonight, good job tonight.” Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. “That was a good thing tonight,” he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the “anonymous U.S. officials” to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I’ve had in recent days, it’s clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what’s at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

*****************

Thank you for your unwavering service and courage Mr. Babin.

How so many American citizens can applaud Obama, bundle millions in campaign donations, support him and vote for him is hard for me to understand. I can’t get my arms around the fact that so many anti-Military, anti-American’s would like to see our country destroyed yet call themselves patriots and American. It’s unthinkable but we all better understand that Barack Obama needs to be run out of office. Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States of America.

Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

The following is a reprint By Joseph W. McQuaid – New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher

*******************

Ron Paul is a dangerous man. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.

Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.

A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”

Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.

This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.

Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.

We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.

He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.

Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).

His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense. It is about time New Hampshire voters showed him the door.

*******************

Liberally Conservative and its author concur. (See related post directly below)

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Today we will honor Veterans Day by pausing to remember those who sacrifice in defense of freedom for our country. We honor all who serve past and present in the United States Armed Forces, their families, and all military retirees and veterans.

We solemnly remember those fallen men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion and will also not forget those who have yet to come home and remain missing in action.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

This is nice (please notice my sarcasm) as I see a headline about Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy discussing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a microphone accidentally still on.

After a G20 meeting the tuned-in microphone picks up the private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama where Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ the Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

Sarkozy reportedly also told Obama that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

The conversation apparently began with Barack Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move. It’s nice to know where France really stands, cowards as usual.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared:

“I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”

 Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The press heard this conversation but forget freedom of the press as journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments.  A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

These politicians set up rules for journalists to protect their true feelings while pretending to side with one country or another or call someone an ally when they are not considered that in the bigger picture.

Sarkozy and Obama are nothing but liars and cowards. It’s now nice to have it on record how they feel about the Israeli Prime Minister who is the only one of the three that has respect for the United States.

I guess Sarkozy doesn’t recognize a liar when he’s talking with one.

Pope Benedict XVI Nazi Salute

Why doesn’t the Catholic church spend some time cleaning up its own backyard? You know, centuries of lurid history from the crusades to modern pedophilia.

Why must the Vatican meddle in world affairs it knows nothing about, ready to pass their massive collection plates across the globe siding with anti-capitalists and attacking financial systems around the world condemning it as “the idolatry of the market”. The robed clowns in Rome are siding with the bums protesting in New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco and where ever the misfits can find a park to sit in and turn it into a stench laden mess.

Demanding that capital excesses be reined in the Holy See echoed the message of protesters encamped outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London, the indignados of Spain and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US. In a statement that any Marxist regime could have written the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace called for an end to rampant speculation, the redistribution of wealth, greater ethics and the establishment of a “central world bank” to which national banks would have to cede power.

I watched Bill McGurn, an Irish Catholic at the Wall Street Journal defend the Pope in a video claiming this is the opinion of a miniscule little office, insignificant at the Vatican so it’s all much about nothing. BUNK! If the Pope, an ex-brown shirt of the Hitler youth can’t rein in his minions and collectively mind their own business than maybe the should give up their riches, get off the public dole and get real jobs.

The clowns in the robes of Rome proclaim Such an authority would have “universal jurisdiction” over governments’ economic strategies. Really? Wasn’t it Adolph Hitler who wished to command jurisdiction over the world? Wasn’t it the Vatican who turned a blind eye when Jews were being slaughtered at the hands of the Nazi’s?

I’m personally not thrilled with the World Bank or International Monetary Fund and cringe when one of those institutions suggest how the US should manage its financial systems. However, speaking out of both sides of the Holy mouth stating both groups have exposed “selfishness, greed and the hoarding of goods on a grand scale”. This is quite truth, but then why turn around and demand “universal jurisdiction?” Who would control the finances of the world? The Vatican?

While speaking of financial transparency and propriety let’s visit the Vatican and their practices.

1. Last year the Vatican Bank, known officially as the Institute for Religious Works, had €23m (£20m) of its assets frozen by Italian authorities as part of an investigation into suspected money-laundering.
2. After years of resisting calls for greater openness, the scandal forced the bank to adopt international norms on transparency.
3. The Holy See’s murky financial past has included, most notoriously, its involvement in the bankruptcy of Italy’s biggest private bank, the Banco Ambrosiano, in the early 1980s.
4. Its president, Roberto Calvi, who was nicknamed “God’s Banker”, was found hanged beneath Blackfriars Bridge, with investigators unable to rule whether he had committed suicide or had been murdered.

Thomas J Reese, a Vatican analyst at Georgetown University in the United States, said the:

. . . “radical” proposals put forward on Monday aligned the Holy See with the Occupy Wall Street movement and meant that the Vatican’s views on the economic crisis were “to the Left of every politician in the United States”.

Reese said the proposals reflected many of the encyclicals and addresses issued by Benedict XVI on the global economy during the last six years of his papacy.

I suppose the Pope’s childhood experience in Hitler’s youth group in ingrained, he can’t help himself. Bill McGurn is wrong since the manure runs downhill, beginning at the top.

Pope Benedict XVI should gather his Holy flock and tell them to mind their business and put their own house in order. If the Vatican is so worried about the poor they should sell of their assets and redistribute them to the needy.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Yes, it was an Obama campaign promise, but after personally shooting Osama bin Laden and Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi what else is left. Mission Accomplished!

Except for some major problems with walking away to the neighbor of the hostile Iran, which will undermine US interests in the Middle East in the long-run. However, this was a political decision with election 2012 coming up, to heck with national security.

“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” proclaimed the erstwhile Obama.

Behind the scenes a failure had taken place that is quietly being put aside by team Obama. The Administration tried and failed to negotiate with the Iraqi government to extend the US troop presence there in order to ensure the country’s security and stability. The sticking point for the negotiations was immunity for US troops in Iraq.

Deputy National Security Advisors Denis McDonough and Tony Blinken said in a White House briefing that this was always the plan.

Up to now the public had been told that negotiations were indeed on track to continue logistical support utilizing a residual support group which would be necessary for Iraqi operations in key areas such as counterterrorism, air support, intelligence gathering, and training.

Heritage Foundation’s James Phillips writes:

Iraqi political leaders didn’t want to risk the political consequences of extending immunity for U.S. troops. And given the Obama Administration’s eagerness to withdraw from Iraq and unwillingness to confront Iran they didn’t want to put their political necks on the line. Now, as a result, U.S. security interests will suffer–bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias will be limited, and the ability to contain Iran will be weakened.

While now leaving a security vacuum in Iraq the Obama administration via Hillary Clinton at the State Department is already telegraphing warnings to Iran:

“Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey.”

Clinton is being burned in effigy in Pakistan and I’m sure in some Iranian quarter that same respect is being shown to the US Secretary of State. But talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. An America withdrawal of troops is the strongest statement sent by Obama and his minions so they can squawk all they want during the Sunday talk show circuit, facts are facts. This is demonstrating yet one more show of United States foreign policy weakness abroad.

I don’t wish to see America troops deployed around the world and particularly in hostile environments. However, after the long fight to secure Iraq, all progress made thus far may be jeopardized.

Barack Obama has now established one more talking point to shore up his feckless political base on the campaign trail but this comes at the expense of US national security.

Remember, in the last presidential election cycle Barack Obama promised he would negotiate with Iran and their terrorist leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How is that working out?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

I recant, I recant, I recant my support for Rick Perry for President. Unless of course he’s the last one standing against Barack Obama. During my last day on vacation I decided to tune back into the world of American politics and watched the debate, my first. It was time to see the Republican candidates live.

YIKES – Between Romney flip flopping and Rick Perry telling us we don’t have a heart if we don’t believe in subsidizing illegal aliens education I found myself thinking we’re back to no top tier candidate that is a reliable Conservative. Romney is not a Conservative and never will be a Conservative no matter how often he tells us he’s a Conservative. That claim is a sinking ship.

Then we have Rick Perry, officially breaking the hearts of Conservatives with his chest puffing, daring to challenge the public on illegal immigration. Some nerve don’t you think?

As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru tweeted:

“How do you whiff on the Romney flip-flop hit and call yourself a politician?”

It’s very true Perry left plenty on the table in answering Mitt Romney responses but his answer concerning education of illegal aliens was beyond the pale. (Emphasis LCs)

PERRY: Well, I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks, but the fact of the matter is this: there is nobody on this stage who has spent more time working on border security than I have.

For a decade, I’ve been the governor of a state with a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. We put $400 million of our taxpayer money into securing that border. We’ve got our Texas Ranger recon teams there now.

I supported Arizona’s immigration law by joining in that lawsuit to defend it. Every day I have Texans on that border that are doing their job.

But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.

I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.

This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.

Rick Santorum provided the best response to this:

SANTORUM: Governor Perry, no one is suggesting up here that the students that are illegal in this country shouldn’t be able to go to a college and university. I think you are sort of making this leap that, unless we subsidize this, the taxpayers subsidize it, they won’t be able to go.

Well, most folks who want go to the state of Texas or any other state out of state have to pay the full boat (ph). The point is, why are we subsidizing?

Not that they can’t go. They can go. They just have to borrow money, find other sources to be able to go.

And why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegal in this country? That’s what we’re saying.

Later in the debate Perry comes up with a great response to Michele Bachmann concerning mandating that 6th graders get the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer but unfortunately a little fact checking demonstrates Perry was disingenuous in his reponse:

I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her.

She came by my office talked to me about in program.

Patricia Kilday Hart/Houston Chronicle writes that Perry was accurate but misleading:

“I got lobbied on this issue,” Perry acknowledged. “I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had Stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office, talked to me about this program.”

All of which was true. But it left the impression that Perry was moved by the woman’s story to sign the order. In fact, three weeks before meeting [Heather] Burcham, he had invoked the policy that ignited a firestorm of controversy with the Texas Legislature. Lawmakers thought the decision would best be left to parents, and filed bills to rescind the order.

That’s when Burcham got involved. Wracked by an illness that would claim her life only six months later, she came to the Texas Capitol to advocate for the HPV vaccine.

“The vaccine has done its job if it saves one person from cancer, let alone knocks out cervical cancer altogether,” she told reporters. “It’s my wildest dream come true that I get to maybe reach one person, that my life would not be in vain, that I have lived for a purpose and that I won’t die and never have done anything.”

At the time, Burcham was living with the family of Houston businessman Craig Wilson.

“Heather started babysitting for us in 1997,” Wilson, the father of four daughters, told me last week. “We fell in love with her. She was kinda like a daughter to us.”

He visited the Capitol with Burcham, and saw a friendship blossom between her and Perry.

“He developed a relationship with her,” Wilson said last week. “Heather had his personal cellphone number. She talked to him all the time.”

Shortly after her visit to Austin, Perry invited her to visit a friend’s ranch. There, he showed her how to fire a rifle, and took her for a spin on the back of a motorcycle — two things she had never experienced.

“He spent personal time trying to get some items on her bucket list crossed off before she died,” Wilson said. Perry kept in contact with Burcham until her death, and spoke at her memorial service — two months after the Legislature passed the bill striking his executive order.

Perry’s focus on Burcham was an accurate — and yet misleading — explanation of his HPV order.

Misleading or a lie the response was inaccurate, easily checked and leaves listeners with questions, especially on top of the immigration response.

Debates are important because voters want to hear and see the candidates, they want to make a decision. The latest straw poll out of Florida suggests Romney and Perry are very satisfying to Republicans.

Mr. Perry was the only top-tier candidate to declare himself all-in for the straw poll, organized by the Republican Party of Florida and held in Orlando. His supporters had targeted the 3,500 delegates, and Mr. Perry himself had poked some other candidates for side-stepping the event.

But Herman Cain won the poll with 37% of the 2,657 votes cast. Mr. Perry finished a distant second, with just over 15%, Mitt Romney placed a close third poll, with 14%, Michele Bachmann carried only 1.5% of the vote finishing last behind the erstwhile Jon Huntsman who received 2% of the vote, Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum placed fourth, with nearly 11%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul won just over 10%, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won just over 8%.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

The video, narrated by Rep. McKeon, offers some eye-catching statistics about the overall size of the military, which has shrunk in size relative to Cold War levels, despite record spending levels after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. And it also features combat footage from places such as Afghanistan and relief operations in Haiti and Japan.

The day after the passage of the debt-reduction deal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sent a message to the Pentagon’s rank-and-file–and to Congress. Failure to enact further deficit-reduction measures, he said, might trigger “dangerous, across-the-board” cuts to defense.

The first stage of budget cuts under the “Budget Control Act of 2011” calls for $350 billion in cuts to defense spending over 10 years. But if lawmakers fail to find an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit savings, the law calls for a process called “sequestration” that would result in automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion–half of which would fall on the Pentagon budget by 2013.

In his message, Mr. Panetta said that defense-spending cuts would inevitably be “part of the solution” to the nation’s fiscal crisis. But he echoed a concern raised by his predecessor, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates: That the Defense Department would be forced to make deeper cutbacks that would be driven purely by spending targets, not strategic considerations.

“I will do everything I can to ensure that further reductions in defense spending are not pursued in a hasty, ill-conceived way that would undermine the military’s ability to protect America and its vital interests around the globe,” Mr. Panetta said.

In particular, Mr. Panetta expressed worry about the automatic cuts that would result from a failure of the special congressional panel.

“If that happens, it could trigger a round of dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our ability to protect the nation,” he said.

That scenario, Mr. Panetta added, “would be completely unacceptable.”

“There’s been a lot of talk about the numbers,” Rep. McKeon said. “What we’re going to focus on is what that means – what that means to the guy out on patrol today in Afghanistan.”

The recently passed deficit-reduction deal calls for $350 billion in cuts to defense spending over the next decade. But Rep. McKeon and his allies hope to stave off additional cuts that might be imposed by a special deficit committee that is tasked with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit savings.

“There’s no plan, no strategy, no discussion about what is the mission of the military, what are we going to ask them to do,” Rep. McKeon said.

“It may be tempting to make defense a scapegoat for the government’s fiscal irresponsibility,” said Rep. Thornberry. “But … our fiscal problems were not caused by spending too much on defense. And yet we face a more complex security environment than we’ve faced in a long time.”

It’s very typical of Liberals to offer budget cuts in military and defense spending while increasing to load for entitlements. It’s all about getting reelected and redistribution of wealth with little concern for the US Military or national security.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

So now we have the press and the prognosticators at the Wall Street Journal telling us how Republican Conservatives and “realists” were wrong to challenge Obama and his efforts in Libya which if we recall was “leading from behind.”

Libya is up in the air, fighting continues, the Rebels claimed to have captured one son of Gadhafi only to have him appear on TV celebrating and taking journalists on a tour of Tripoli. What can we believe? Not much unless you look at a draft document of a proposed Libyan Constitution. This came from Heritage so it has credibility where the WSJ editorial board continues to lose theirs.

As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.

It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1:

“Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”

Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

My comments at the WSJ reflect what is turning out to be quite true and I don’t believe I’m a prophet.

Obama didn’t lead anything, he said we would “lead” from behind while France and England are out front with their blabber the press his somehow giving credit to Obama for his 3 day, er, uh, 1 week, er, uh, 1 month er, uh war.

Isn’t the WSJ playing rip the Conservatives once again, you know those pesky Hobbits, while counting Libya’s chickens before they hatch?

Call me skeptical but I still smell Egypt burning and I hear the footsteps of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama isn’t “right” about a thing, he is nothing but cheap talk and it appears the WSJ is buying his BS.

Does the editorial board have an opinion?

As the WSJ opines about “Triumph” for the rebels we have this:

A son of Muammar Gaddafi who rebels said they had captured appeared with cheering supporters in Tripoli, giving a boost to forces loyal to the veteran leader trying to fight off insurgents who say they control most of the capital.

Saif al-Islam, who has been seen as his father’s heir apparent, visited the Tripoli hotel where foreign journalists are staying to declare that the government was winning the battle against the rebels.

He took journalists to his father’s Bab al-Aziziyah stronghold. Television footage showed Saif pumping his fists in the air, smiling, waving and shaking hands with supporters, as well as holding his arms aloft with each hand making the V for victory sign.

“We broke the back of the rebels. It was a trap. We gave them a hard time, so we are winning,” Saif said.

Saif’s arrest had been reported both by rebels and the International Criminal Court in The Hague and his appearance before the foreign media raised questions as to the rebels’ credibility.

As reported –>> http://news.yahoo.com/gaddafi-run-rebels-fight-tripoli-010729502.html

Things aren’t what they always seem to be on TV or in media reports. Yogi Berra was correct.

As I said Egypt is still burning and the pundits and politicians should watch what they ask for and what they are reporting.

Those pesky realists getting in the way again while the WSJ editorial board has moved to Fantasy Island.

Some wish to falsely give Obama credit for toppling a tyrant while fail to recognize a tyrant wannabe currently living the high life at Martha’s Vineyard.

The consensus by most readers commenting is basically the same and giving Obama credit for anything concerning Libya isn’t only premature, it’s ridiculous.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: