Biden Sends Dems Into A Rage Over Sudden Missile Strikes

Leave it to the Dems to (incorrectly) invoke the Constitution when they think they may score a few political points amongst their avid followers on TikTok or other nonsensical social media platform.

Following Biden’s sudden, frankly surprising, missile strikes launched at Houthi targets in the Middle East, it is safe to say that a bunch of Dems have come out of the woodwork claiming that Biden “can’t” attack foreign terrorists due to so-called clauses in the Constitution.

Tellingly, the same Democrats are not as concerned about the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections for J6 defendants, who are actual U.S. citizens that don’t spend their free time bombing and killing innocent people into submission.

Democrat Representative Ro Khanna is one of the current leaders in the outrage against Biden movement, demanding that Biden seek permission from Congress before “launching a strike” against anti-American terrorists.

“The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another Middle East conflict … That is Article I of the Constitution,” Khanna sniffed.

Right. All of the sudden the Constitution is relevant to a Dem argument.

“I will stand up for that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House,” Khanna insisted.

Well, no kidding. Considering that more than one Dem apparently supports domestic and international terrorists, regardless of who is in the White House.

In particular the ghastly “Representative” Rashida Tlaib, who has all but pledged allegiance to Hamas.

“@POTUS is violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval. The American people are tired of endless war,” Tlaib tweeted in a rage.

Fortunately, thanks to X CEO Elon Musk’s adjustment of different platform controls, different social media users happily schooled Tlaib on her constitutional illiteracy.

“Readers added context,” the social media platform noted, before adding the specific details of readers’ superior knowledge of the law.

“This is false. The President has the power to use the armed forces in response to an attack on the armed forces. Houthis launched a missile attack against US and UK ships. The Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 is still in force,” X users collectively wrote.

Indeed, a visit to the official webpage of Congress itself reveals such authorization, which was passed on September 14, 2001.

“[The] Authorization for Use of Military Force [Act] authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons … This Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution,” Congress details.

The 2001 Act is an expansion of executive authority relative to the 1793 War Powers Resolution, which holds that the President must seek Congressional approval before initiating war.

However, following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, Congress passed an effective amendment to the 1793 Resolution that permits the president to take more immediate action in the wake of a sudden attack.

That’s why Democrats a tad more in tune with the actual law have avoided such melodramatic accusations based on a Constitution that most of them clearly don’t believe in anyway.

That said, they still advocate the most sniveling means of conflict resolution possible.

Democrat Representative Gregory Meeks blatantly waffles while claiming to “support” strikes while also calling for “diplomatic efforts” at the same time.

“While I support these targeted, proportional military strikes, I call on the Biden Administration to continue its diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation to a broader regional war and continue to engage Congress on the details of its strategy and legal basis as required by law,” Meeks mused.

With respect, Mr. Meeks, please pick a lane or otherwise transform your message to make it less inherently contradictory.

While Dems continue wringing their hands, more than one long-term Republican is obviously not displeased by the rate at which the Biden administration has suddenly become rather trigger happy.

Including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a longstanding Republican.

“I welcome the U.S. and coalition operations against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists responsible for violently disrupting international commerce in the Red Sea and attacking American vessels. President Biden’s decision to use military force against these Iranian proxies is overdue,” McConnell boomed.

Quite a bit in the Biden administration is “overdue,” but the puppet appears to have been woken up to the fact that he needs to perform for his puppet masters in 2024.

“I am hopeful these operations mark an enduring shift in the Biden Administration’s approach to Iran and its proxies. To restore deterrence and change Iran’s calculus, Iranian leaders themselves must believe that they will pay a meaningful price unless they abandon their worldwide campaign of terror,” McConnell added.

Provided Biden doesn’t give away billions to Iran again, much of which likely engendered the terrorist attacks in the first place.

Author: Ofelia Thornton


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More