LOS ANGELES, September 11, 2013 – With blogger and social media postings at an all-time high, the hashtag #Syria continues to be high on the trend lists.
From Facebook to Twitter, from Instagram to Vine, from Google Plus to LinkedIn, people from all over the internet in America are wondering why the president is enforcing his opinion over the wishes of the American public.
Many people on social media are outraged at the fact the President Obama stated “as a commander in chief,” he has the right to order a military strike against Syria without Congressional approval.
However, he said that Capitol Hill support would strengthen the response to the alleged chemical attack. The president’s belief in the lack of constitutional need to request Congressional approval raises the question as to whether or not the President is creating a precedent that will hamstring (or over-empower) future Commanders-in-Chief.
“As commander in chief I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I don’t believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress because I think it’s an empty exercise,” Obama said during a news conference in Stockholm on Wednesday, after a meeting with the Swedish prime minister.
All over the World Wide Web, people are defiant and angry at the president’s decision, pointing to America’s need to ensure domestic tranquility and to provide for the common defense for this nation first. Those who are angry with the president raise several questions in regard to America’s failure to take care of home, noting America’s domestic issues of failing cities (such as Detroit), the prison system, the slumping economy, a lack of jobs, and a still-sputtering housing market.
Conservative writer Keith Wolaridge noted, in a Facebook post: “…there are SO MANY humanitarian atrocities domestically and around the world that it is impossible to police them all…(and) the economic cost of trying to do so would be impossible to carry… we have no jurisdiction there to go in and kill people because someone over there killed someone else over there using means we don’t “approve” of, and…doing such a thing would make us just like the sort of imperial tyrant that the country’s founders were trying to guard against.”
Another Facebook writer, Patricia Taylor, believes that the president is attempting to cover up his own failed presidency by attacking Syria, declaring, “We’re always branded Imperialists if we go in and ‘help’ — Bush 41 and 43 are called Evil, etc. For going after Hussein who killed more people than Assad using chemical weapons. No one defended these great Presidents. I do, often. But this President only makes this call because it’s a way to distract us from Benghazi, Fast &Furious, NSA, and IRS. He’s wagging the dog just like Clinton did.”
Still others take the ideas of global control even further, illustrating that Americans have lost any sort of trust in the honesty of Washington, believing their motives to be far more insidious than political power.
An online writer, Angela Meredith, said the following on Facebook: “Why would you defend them? They worked for the Central Bankers. The reason for Iraq was to install a Central Bank (which happened 4 months after the 2004 invasion), and now it’s Syria’s turn. All (of) the presidents are the same, but the news tells you they are different. They all carry out the same agenda.”
Even in their disagreement with Obama, all are not swayed by thoughts of tyrannical globalism—while still maintaining that it is not in America’s interest to intervene.
Daniel Higa on Facebook stated, in a response to Angela Meredith: “Had the opposition not been run by and allied with Al- freakin’ Qaeda, I might agree. But these ‘rebels’ are in many ways worse than Assad; who is no saint, but provides a small sense of stability in Syria. I don’t like the guy, but this is like choosing a side between a fight between Adolf Hitler and Robert Mugabe. There is no benefit for us in terms of national security. It will only replace Assad with a Muslim Brotherhood-like tyranny just like Egypt.”
Nor is the rhetoric limited to just the anonymous rants on Facebook. Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, sent out a message on Twitter regarding the matter, stating: “Warmongers: Let me hasten to tell you that you’re getting yourself into a War that you would wish that you had never gotten into! #Syria.”
DC pundit Armstrong William posted on his morning Blog: “Prime Minister David Cameron ask for the British parliament to support this ill-conceived strike in Syria. And they answered NO!
However the British parliamentary vote was a non-binding resolution, meaning the Prime Minister was not required to follow their lead. But in his wisdom he chose to acquiesce to the wishes of his people.”
Americans must follow the lead of Britain. Americans must hold their elected officials accountable as for what the Constitution states and stands for. Social media has empowered the people and their views on government. The president’s next chess move will be overseen and reported upon—not merely by the news, but through the infinite reach of the trending hashtags and the internet bloggers and the social networks.
Through this medium; through cloud computing and data and analytics; by using these emerging social and mobile technology trends; by using the ‘net to analyze threats and security challenges; and by continuing to harness the power of technology to better servicing citizens, industry partners, and agency missions; no matter what the outcome is, we can be comforted that the people will not go unheard.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.