Obama Has No Authority To Bomb Syria

todayAugust 19, 2015

share close

Where Are All The Conservatives?

Defenders of Christendom landscape pic 1300w x 975hMandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript“If you wanted to see this story, you’d have to go to Russia Today,, to find the story.  The AP would pick up on it later in the day, but it would be the Russkies that would break the news first.  I’ll read you the headline, “Taking sides in Syrian civil war? Obama authorizes airstrikes ‘to defend’ US-trained rebels.”  Can I ask a question?  What in God’s holy name is a United States-trained terrorist rebel?  Why am I being taxed to support said training?”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Yesterday morning – now, this is interesting.  If you wanted to see this story, you’d have to go to Russia Today,, to find the story.  The AP would pick up on it later in the day, but it would be the Russkies that would break the news first.  I’ll read you the headline, “Taking sides in Syrian civil war? Obama authorizes airstrikes ‘to defend’ US-trained rebels.”  Can I ask a question?  What in God’s holy name is a United States-trained terrorist rebel?  Why am I being taxed to support said training?

It is not widely known, although it should be, that these so-called “U.S. rebels” are on the side of Al Qaeda.  I see these headlines and I just wonder why.  Why does it always seem when these things happen, when yet another undeclared war is basically declared by the president, where is the “conservative” pushback on this?  This is obviously an abuse of power.  Do you want to hear the best part?  Obama’s lawyers told him to go out there and claim that he was using the legal authority granted to the presidency in the 14-year-old 2001 authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda.  That’s funny, these guys in Syria are actually claiming that they are Al Qaeda.  Does the authorization to use military force also contain a clause that says the authorization to withhold or to join military forces with Al Qaeda?  If we go back to June 14, 2013, we shall find this on the front page of the USA Today.  Here’s the headline, “Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda.”


A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

[end reading]

Mike:  Understand that these rebels, these moderate buddies of ours, of John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte and the rest of the war hawks, the rest of the unjust war, warmongers, that these rebels have as their goal the destabilization of Syria.  Wait a minute, I thought our policy was to create stability.  If you overthrow the current leadership of what is – it may not be totally palatable and we may not approve of all that it does but it is relatively stable – Syria, what are you doing?  You’re going to do what?  You’re going to turn Syria into what Iraq has become.  You’re going to turn Syria into what Libya has become.  Does any of this sink in?  You people think this is all about ending Muslim terrorism, it’s not.  That’s their calling card.  If we were to eliminate – if it were even possible, and it’s not – wholesale Muslim terrorism, this would put Boeing and the military-industrial complex out of business.  That’s the last thing they want.  I don’t believe that I see these headlines.  Here’s the president abusing his authority again.  As Daniel Larison points out, you know why Republicans don’t say anything about this.  You know why alleged, fake conservatives and fake constitutionalists don’t obama-empire-strikes-back-syriasay anything about this, because when their guy gets in there, they want him to do the same thing.  We’ll go after the penguins in Antarctica, buddy.


The US president has reportedly authorized the Air Force to protect Syrian rebels trained by Washington to fight against Islamic State by bombing any force attacking them, including Syrian regular troops.

[end reading]

Mike:  Let’s just say for a moment that there was some kind of a civil war going on in Texas.  Or there was some kind of altercation between the Texans and the Mexican militia.  The Mexican militia had successfully pushed into Texas and Texas militia forces, awaiting federal backup, had repelled the first attack as the militia sought to take down the capital of Austin.  If the Russians sent fighter jets in to support the Mexican rebels, if the Russians had trained the Mexican rebels, and if the Russian jets flew into Texas air space for air support, what would we call that?  What would you call that?  [mocking] “Come on, Mike, that’s an act of war.  We’ll kill them Russians.”  That’s right.  That’s exactly what you should say.  It’s an act of war.  What do you think the Syrians are going to call it?  Oh, that’s right, I forgot.  They’re Syrians.  They don’t have, they don’t even have the right to exist, right?  Only we have the right to exist.  Silly me.  Of course Obama is right.


The change was first reported by US officials speaking on condition of anonymity with the Wall Street Journal Sunday. The first airstrikes to protect American trainees in Syria have already taken place on Friday, July 31, when the US Air Force bombed unidentified militants who attacked the compound of the US-trained rebels.

[end reading]

Mike:  I’d like to know when Congress authorized a declaration of war against Syria.  If they’re U.S.-trained rebels, that implies that they’re in the employ of the United States., does it not?  What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here?


So far the fighter jets of the anti-Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) US-led coalition have been bombing jihadist targets in Syria’s north and the national air defense units were turning


a blind eye to foreign military aircraft in their airspace.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s decision reportedly involves inflicting airstrikes against any force that attacks the Syrian rebel armed force being trained by American instructors . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  You may recall, remember when this came up for a vote, this vote went down in flames.  Am I the only one who remembers this?  There was a vote to fund and activate these Syrian rebels.  Remember, this is McCain’s idea and it blew up.  It was never approved.  Where is the money coming from?  Where is Congress?  Does anyone care?  Probably not.


This site is supported by your Founders Pass memberships and purchases in the Founders Tradin’ Post, can Mike count on your support today? Shop the Tradin’ Post and become a Founders Pass member.

“For offensive operations, it’s ISIS only. But if attacked, we’ll defend them against anyone who’s attacking them,” a senior military official told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday. “We’re not looking to engage the regime, but we’ve made a commitment to help defend these people.” [Mike: Who’s we? Who is we? Again, the danger of using the pronoun we without defining it.]

Neither the Pentagon nor the White House officially commented on the decision about the new broader rules of engagement, Reuters reports. So far the US has been avoiding direct confrontation with the forces of President Bashar Assad.

“We won’t get into the specifics of our rules of engagement, but have said all along that we would take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  Please understand what’s going on here.  Muslim madmen that self-identify as terrorists have been hand selected by Senator McCain and Graham and Obama and whoever else as our new allies, our new buddies.  They have been armed by you and me.  They’ve been sent into combat by you and me, and under the auspices now of the US military.  We’ve made a distinction between: Are you a good witch or are you a bad witch?  Are you a good terrorist or a bad terrorist?  This in a civil war, the business of which this country, this nation, not nation, this union of states as it used to be, has no interest or business in whatever.  There it is.  There it is.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x