Before you lend any credibility to those anti-war Syria protests around the country, you may wish to consider that they are started by our enemies and their “useful idiots.”
Not exactly a grassroots organization, but an organization that appears to be run by the hard left, progressive socialist democrats and communists …
Here come our enemies, a fifth-column that has infiltrated the highest reaches of our government and most of our critical infrastructure institutions …
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), also known as International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the ANSWER Coalition, is a United States-based protest umbrella group consisting of many antiwar and civil rights organizations. http://www.answercoalition.org Formed in the wake of the September 11th attacks, ANSWER has since helped to organize many of the largest anti-war demonstrations in the United States, including demonstrations of hundreds of thousands against the Iraq War.The group has also organized activities around a variety of other issues, ranging from the Israel/Palestine debate to immigrant rights to Social Security to the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles.
ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing or progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's lead organizers had ties to the International Action Center, and Workers World Party at the time of ANSWER's founding. <Source>
A little something from the LA Weekly …
Behind the Placards -- The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
Free Mumia. Free the Cuban 5. Free Jamil Al-Amin (that‘s H. Rap Brown, the former Black Panther convicted in March of killing a sheriff’s deputy in 2000). And free Leonard Peltier. Also, defeat Zionism. And, while we‘re at it, let’s bring the capitalist system to a halt.
This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro‘s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s ”socialist system,“ which, according to the party‘s newspaper, has kept North Korea ”from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.“ The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, ”Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.“
Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials -- including spokesperson Brian Becker -- are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.
Never in the history of the United States have our enemies gained such a powerbase within the government and essential institutions. This fifth column, directed by our enemies, both foreign and domestic, appears to have found a home in the progressive socialist democrat party and among corrupt politicians who are willing to accept laundered funds from suspicious sources.
A little something to consider as we approach the 2014 congressional election cycle and openly socialist politicians are running for reelection. If you need a starting point, consider that all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus appear to have radical roots or espouse a version of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist creation to create a cadre of race- and class-based victims to serve as fodder for professional agitators.
Time to clean up the government cesspool, starting with those who put themselves and their special interests before America. If this sound racist, consider that is exactly what the politically correct crowd want – people who speak the truth to be demonized, demoralized, or denigrated into silence and irrelevance per Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Is President Obama’s proposed attack on Syria, a continuation and amplification of the Bush attack plan for keeping Iran from going nuclear?
I am have a great deal of difficulty determining the end-game strategy of President Obama’s willingness to unilaterally commit an act of war by attacking Syria without Congressional approval or international cover.
Part of this difficulty comes from the fact that there is no “apparent” advantage for the United States in pursuing such an attack, and that there is a great deal of “apparent” disadvantage.
One, it does not appear, at least on the surface, that any American interests are at stake. Certainly Syria has not declared war on America and there appears to be no imminent attack plan. The only people that might benefit from such an attack on Syria by the United States are: the opposition with its Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda components; Saudia Arabia who would see another Shia sect, the Alawites, removed from power and possibly be ethnically cleansed by the opposition; and Qatar who wants to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria.
Other than the disadvantage to the United States, Syria would be definitely disadvantaged, our ally Israel would be disadvantaged, Russia would be disadvantaged, and Iran and Hezbollah would be disadvantaged, But, perhaps that the whole point: Iran and Hezbollah would be disadvantaged.
Blame it on former President Bush?
In May 2007, apresidential finding revealed that Bush had authorized CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.<Source>
Is this the “secret of Benghazi?”
"The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." <Source>
Apparently the Obama Administration, including President Obama himself, is willing to lie to the American public about what happened on the anniversary of the original 9/11 terrorist attack on America in Benghazi, Libya. Could it be that the administration was attempting to hide a covert joint CIA/State Department operation that supplied heavy military weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles, to known al Qaeda-linked terrorists for use in Syria. And, that this arming of international terrorists could have severe political and criminal ramifications if it was ever “officially” acknowledged. Such arms were to flow through Sunni-majority Turkey; perhaps the reason for Ambassador Stevens last meeting with the Turkish Ambassador.
But there must be a compelling reason for America to strike Syria: the chemical attack on civilians …
Think about it carefully. Assad would be crazy to use chemical weapons against a civilian population. Not only would it draw an immediate reaction from the international community, but it would mark Assad as a potential war criminal to be captured and tried in a military tribunal in an international setting or killed. The opposition would likewise by crazy to use such weapons as they would lose significant support from the international community. It is also unlikely that low-level commanders would use chemical weapons without authorization from Assad as to do so would mark them for instant execution, possibly by their own command with its embedded political operatives.
Which leaves false flag operations.
By definition, a false flag operation is a covert affair that sees on participant mount an offensive act and blame it on the opposition. Because, even under the strictest security, major operational details usually leak with the help of spies or political dissidents “in the know,” it is a very risky maneuver with a high degree of being discovered. Which brings us to a false flag conspiracy theory that may be the real answer or nothing more than a way to increase the audience of certain publications that make a handsome living by “exposing” so-called conspiracy theories.
The theory: The rebels used chemical weapons, ostensibly obtained from an unknown third-party, an attempted to mount a false flag operation to damage Assad by bringing the United States into the conflict to make good President Obama’s “red line” warning and to spare Obama from the political embarrassment of an inept leaders who “leads from behind.”
Did Saudi Intelligence Operatives supply chemical weapons to a third-party to mount a false flag operation to be blamed on Assad?
Part One: Are the Saudis and Qataris bankrolling the opposition and supplying conventional weapons with U.S. Assistance?
Syrian rebels claim receipt of major weapons shipment -- Militia leaders say hundreds of tonnes of ammunition and some light weapons allowed across Turkish border in past three days
Rebel groups in Syria's north say they have received their largest shipment of weapons yet, in a fillip to an anti-government campaign that had stalled for many months. Leaders of militias supported by backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar say several hundred tonnes of ammunition and a limited supply of light weapons were allowed across the Turkish border in the past three days, in what they said was the first large-scale re-supply since earlier this year.
The weapons are believed to have been sent by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and were warehoused in Turkey for many months. Senior rebel commanders contacted by the Guardian say they did not include anti-aircraft missiles, but several dozen anti-tank rockets were among them. <Source>
Part Two: There are unconfirmed anecdotal reports of chemical weapons being supplied by the Saudis …
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
Part Three: Is the source credible?
Caveat: this story was not published under the auspices of the Associated Press and any reference to the Associated Press was used as a means to demonstrate Gavlak’s journalistic credentials.
Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East, contributing to the AP, National Public Radio, BBC and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago.
Anybody can say anything …
It is unknown if Gavlak’s reporting of third-party accounts is credible because anyone can say anything for any particular personal or political motive. But it is known that the New York Times did run a story that indicates that obtaining proof of what chemical weapons were used, what delivery system was used, and who used the weapons is not an easy task.
United States intelligence under the Bush Administration has been wrong before; and, under Obama, might be wrong again …
U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria
The evidence of a massacre is undeniable: the bodies of the dead lined up on hospital floors, those of the living convulsing and writhing in pain and a declaration from a respected international aid group that thousands of Syrians were gassed with chemical weapons last week.
And yet the White House faces steep hurdles as it prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.
More than a decade later, the Obama administration says the information it will make public, most likely on Thursday, will show proof of a large-scale chemical attack perpetrated by Syrian forces, bolstering its case for a retaliatory military strike on Syria.
But with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval.
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground. <Source>
And even the latest news has positive assertions, but suspicious intelligence sources …
Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place.
Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21
A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.
A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.
We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition.
Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.
Translation: The United States intelligence community believes they know what happened, but cannot confirm it. Sort of like the WMD’s in Iraq? Given the pro-Arab, pro-Saudi stance of the Obama Administration and the Director of the CIA, there is something to be concerned about if this issue is really about Syria and not Iran. Notice that the specifics, such as the nerve agent used, is missing and that the quoted “sources” often have an agenda of their own and can be highly unreliable people attached to credible organizations. The fact that the government has a specific count of the victims makes me doubt the credibility of this report.
You will also note that unlike previously declassified intelligence reports, known as NIEs (National Intelligence Estimates), this one is unusually titled “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.”
But one of my big questions: why were the people handling these bodies not wearing protective gear or, at least, respirators with filters?
Bottom line …
I have no clue to what really happened in Syria. But, the one thing that appears to be true is that Iran, a state-sponsor of international terrorism, continues to build its nuclear capability. So, if the United States intelligence agencies know that Iran is close to building a military-grade nuclear weapon, why the subterfuge and covert situational finessing of Syria? Why not just continue to build military assets in the region – in plain sight -- and strike Iran directly. Surprise. Surprise.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Just a note of relief as we return to science rather than the insane and incomprehensible machinations of President Obama and his fellow travelers who continue to pursue their progressive socialist democrat ideology. – steve
The latest peer-reviewed article that appears to suggest that, whoops, climate change has a natural variability and that the recent pause in the observed global temperature trend is due to “NATURE” and not so much man.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.
Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity.
Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.
We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming).
Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA.
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
Journal: Nature; Year published: (2013); DOI: doi:10.1038/nature12534; Received: 18 June 2013; Accepted: 08 August 2013; Published online: 28 August 2013
A WOW for at least on climate scientist, Judith Curry …
For those who know nothing about Judith Curry’s reputation, she is a well-credentialed climate scientist with an open mind. And, it is often her willingness to consider alternative viewpoints that riles those dogmatic ideologues who are certain that global warming is mostly attributable to human activities and that strong politically-controlled public policies are the prescriptives for preventing a planetary catastrophe. What really bothers the climate ideologues is that Curry apparently believes science is not performed by consensus and that one needs to objectively examine the facts.
Curry has stated that she is troubled by the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. She has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public and should engage with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. <Source>
From Curry’s blog …
What is mind blowing is Figure 1b, which gives the POGA C simulations (natural internal variability only).The main ’fingerprint’ of AGW has been the detection of a separation between climate model runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. The detection of AGW has emerged sometime in the late 1970′s , early 1980′s.
Compare the temperature increase between 1975-1998 (main warming period in the latter part of the 20th century) for both POGA H and POGA C:
POGA H: 0.68C (natural plus anthropogenic)
POGA C: 0.4C (natural internal variability only)
I’m not sure how good my eyeball estimates are, and you can pick other start/end dates. But no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.
Like I said, my mind is blown. I have long argued that the pause was associated with the climate shift in the Pacific Ocean circulation, characterized by the change to the cool phase of the PDO. I have further argued that if this is the case, then the warming since 1976 was heavily juiced by the warm phase of the PDO. I didn’t know how to quantify this, but I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, and hence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW. Read more at http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/
It seems reasonable to believe that if Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is a relatively small factor in the observed global climate trend, and subservient to nature’s normal climate variability, that there is no urgency to implement all of the public policies that are being discussed; especially those that provide an advantage to the government while disadvantaging “we the People.”
Bottom line …
The science is not as settled as the IPCC and their cadre of progressive socialist democrats would have you believe. There is enough reasonable doubt about what is occurring in our environment, if man can detect the signal of climate change amid the noise of natural climate variability, and if man can even affect climate change on a global scale. Especially considering that the global climate is a function of such natural factors as: the Sun’s energy output, the Earth’s Orbital position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s rotational and planetary dynamics; the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics; the thermodynamics of deep ocean currents, and the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, – all of which appear beyond man’s direct control.
And, if one want’s to illustrate the ugly intrusion of politics into science, one needs go no further than the governmental promotion of public policies relating to “cap and trade,” allowing gross polluters to keep polluting the air, water, and land of localities – killing or sickening local populations – in return for purchasing government-sanctioned pollution indulgences from for-profit entities managed by the Wall Street Wizards.
Not to mention the Orwellian doublespeak of the progressive socialist democrats who continue to demonize the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide, as the root of all global warming. In spite of the fact that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in global temperature by 600 – 1000 years (depending on the dataset and time range) and thus cannot be causal. Not only are the beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide ignored, there are those who will not even consider the most simple explanation for the rise of carbon dioxide, that it is a result of the warming oceans outgassing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Big money has corrupted climate science in a way not seen in other disciplines. Much of the corruption is simply the result of the natural selection of scientific research projects that favors the funding of projects that appear to track the prevailing wisdom of those doing the funding. Few scientists want to buck the trend and appear as contrarians – especially when their funding, promotions, publications, and career are placed on the line. All confirmed by the “Climate-gate” e-mails that saw the covert manipulation of the peer-publishing process and methodology of career destruction actually being discussed between prominent climate researchers whose life-long career work were being challenged by recent findings.
Science will continue to be done. And, not by consensus. But, it remains for all of us to ensure that our corrupt politicians do not use science to change our way of life and reduce our freedom in the name of a international socialist agenda.
And, as a final caution: models are merely by pale imitations of the awesome power and dynamics of natural processes; especially chaotic systems and self-regulating mechanisms.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Here is the progressive socialist democrat doyenne, Nancy Pelosi, herself with Assad … for the purpose of inserting the democrats into Middle East politics.
2007 -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the [Bush] White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.
Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations. <Source>
It’s no different that sending drones into Pakistan?
Some of the democrat talking heads are now asking how Obama’s sending Cruise Missiles into Syria is any different then using drones in Pakistan. A demonstration of progressive socialist democrat stupidity – as drone strikes are targeted against known terrorists and terrorist supporters, part of the authorized Afghanistan conflict.
Bottom line …
Because the progressive socialist democrats have leaked so many details of a potential strike, there is little chance that Syria has not moved and./or strengthened critical assets. The facts remain:
This is an act of war.
There is no American interests directly involved.
We do not know which chemical agent was use, what sources is indicated by the chemical’s signature, what delivery method was used, and most importantly – who did it.
The opposition containing members of al Qaeda would be strengthened.
Any missile strike would have minimal consequences as it is designed to send a very costly message about Obama’s balls and credibility – and might put Israel in danger.
There is no way you can trust President Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Brennan with foreign policy.
The whole Syria affair revolves around Obama checking off the box because he was the one who drew the "red line."
It is also possible that Obama is planning to continue weakening America on the world stage and what better way than to illustrate an impotent America with little credibilty.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
This is a downright scary exchange between a State Department Spokesperson and the mainstream media. Not only does it point to the Obama’s unwillingness to consider facts and circumstances before taking action, it points to the White House support of a rigid ideological position …
It is unbelievable that the Department of State does not seem concerned with the pertinent facts surrounding surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, but stands ready to hold President Assad responsible for their use no matter who and how they were unleashed on the civilian population. Following this line of reason, President Obama could be impeached, tried, removed from office and jailed for the current scandals involving his administration.
Gun running weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels for political advantage of tightening gun control.
Weapons delivery to known Muslim terrorists in Benghazi to aid the Muslim Brotherhood.
IRS using audits and examinations to interfere with a presidential election.
IRS inappropriately targeting journalists to suppress anti-administration stories.
NSA spying on domestic Americans and expanding their scope of authority.
Lest we be accused of taking something out of context, here is the State Department transcript that appears to hold Syria’s President accountable for any action that occurred on his watch.
The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if command and control – he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, “Go,” on this.
Read it for yourself …
Department of State -- Marie Harf - Deputy Spokesperson - Daily Press Briefing - August 28, 2013
QUESTION: I wonder if you could flesh that out for us a bit, because as you know, in the deployment of a chemical weapons or a chemical weapon or munitions armed with chemical weapons, there are several layers through which an order has to proceed. And I wonder if you are telling us that you believe that President Assad himself maintains full control, command and control, over the chemical weapons arsenal, or whether you think that that control is exercised at some mid level. Tell us what you mean when you say you think the regime maintains full control.
MS. HARF: It’s a good question, and I don’t have a lot of information about that for you. If I can share more about that, I will. I think I’d make a few points, that we ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies. I don’t have more details for you on that specifically. Obviously, we’ve said that the regime maintains control of these weapons and that the opposition, of course, doesn’t have the capability to use them. And if I have more to share with you about the specific command and control, I will. I just don’t at this time.
QUESTION: Do you believe that he ordered this attack?
MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer to that.
QUESTION: If he – but if he or his people didn’t have anything – I don’t understand how you can say it doesn’t matter where the command and control lies.
MS. HARF: I didn’t say it doesn’t matter. He is ultimately held responsible for the actions of his regime.
QUESTION: Of his regime.
QUESTION: Regardless --
MS. HARF: Regardless.
QUESTION: Regardless of whether he --
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- said --
MS. HARF: Not that it doesn’t matter.
QUESTION:How can you hold him accountable regardless of where the command and control is? If the command and control doesn’t rest within him or his people below him in the food chain, how do you hold him responsible?
MS. HARF: Well, let’s be clear. The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if command and control – he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, “Go,” on this. And again, I don’t know what the facts are here. I’m just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I’m not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I’m just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made.
QUESTION:So it doesn’t matter to you whether he personally gave the order? It doesn’t --
MS. HARF:He is responsible at the same level --
QUESTION: It doesn’t matter --
MS. HARF: -- either way.
QUESTION: It doesn’t – either way, depending on --
MS. HARF: And again, I just actually don’t know the facts here.
QUESTION: Just let me make sure I understand.
QUESTION: What do you mean by “either way”?
QUESTION:Just let me make sure I understand. It does not matter whether President Assad himself gave an order to use chemical weapons?
MS. HARF:He is responsible for their use.
QUESTION: It doesn’t matter; is that correct?
MS. HARF:He is responsible either way, yes.
QUESTION: So if some rogue officer did this, it’s still his responsibility?
MS. HARF: That’s – well, (a) yes. But that’s also a wildly conjecturous question that I think in no way there’s --
QUESTION: I’ll stick with --
MS. HARF: -- evidence that’s supporting it right now.
QUESTION: I’ll stick with (a), but thank you.
MS. HARF: Yeah. But let’s be clear here that based on multiple independent streams of information widely available that again I will say the only logical conclusion is that the Assad regime itself was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in this attack, period.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: You’re familiar with reports that the rebels have had access to and have used sarin in this conflict, correct?
MS. HARF: We do not assess that the rebels – the rebels, the opposition – excuse me – that the opposition have the capabilities to use these kinds of weapons. We don’t --
QUESTION: But --
MS. HARF: That’s our – that remains our assessment.
QUESTION: But is it your assessment that they have at any possessed sarin?
MS. HARF: I don’t have anything for you on that. I actually just don’t know the answer. But our assessment remains crystal clear that they don’t have the capability --
QUESTION: That’s the opposition that you support, not the al-Qaida affiliated opposition --
MS. HARF: We also assess that al-Nusrah does not have the ability to use these kinds of weapons. Again, to – let’s talk for a second – let’s step back and talk about what this was. This was a massive, large-scale, multiply – multiple-faceted attack against a wide swath of area using very sophisticated rockets, very sophisticated delivery systems that were armed with chemical weapons. There is one party in Syria who has the capability to do that, and it’s the Assad regime.
WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF: If you wish to watch the press conference, it can be seen here.
It appears that the State Department under the corrupt progressive socialist democrat Hillary Clinton was totally screwed up and it is no better under the socialist progressive democrat John Kerry. Both apparently carrying out the foreign policy of Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Tom Brennan mindless of the consequences to America. How any President of the United States, Secretary of State, and the Ambassador to the United Nations can openly lie to the American people about Benghazi seems to prove a singular point: they are corrupt ideologues unable to tell the truth unless it suits their political agenda.
Bottom line …
It is hard to believe that our government, at all levels, is so ideologically rigid and bound to the dictates of the progressive socialist democrats, that they are willing to sit idly by as President Obama commits an “act of war” on a foreign sovereign nation with no clear objective than to restore Obama’s reputation from the common perception that he is incompetent, inept, and lacks leadership skills. Always leading from behind so that someone else will take the blame if something goes wrong. A detached leader, if you can even use that term, who would rather play cards with an aide than watch an historic attack on the most notorious terrorist of our time. A man that is more comfortable campaigning and speechifying than governing. A man who appears to allow aids like Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Tom Brennan yank his chain rather than put forth his own opinion.
We live in scary times. A time when the President’s loyalty to America is openly debated and Congress sits in session afraid to uphold their oaths of office. God Bless America in this time where leadership, courage, and morality is lacking.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Once again, we have a timid Congress that appears unwilling to challenge the President of the Untied States to define the limits of his authority under the United States Constitution. Namely, to provide a constitutional legal argument for taking military action, which could be construed to be an “act of war,” against a foreign sovereign nation without a direct or imminent threat to the United States.
When queried, individual members of Congress appear to take a hard line that any intervention in Syria is non-emergent and requires an act of Congress before any action is taken by the President of the United States. That is, they are big at writing letters, individually and jointly, and sending them to the President with copies to the mainstream media.
But it appears that they are requesting “consultation” which is left undefined. There is no provision in the Constitution for “consultation” if the President is contemplating a unilateral attack on a foreign sovereign nation. Unless the United States is attacked, or such an attack is imminent, the President is bound by the Constitution to seek a declaration of war from Congress. At the present time, Syria does not appeared to have declared war on the United States nor does it appear that they have taken any covert or overt action against the United States or its citizens.
The Constitution and the Law …
Constitution: Article One, Section 8 – Powers of Congress – Enumerated Powers
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)
-- 50 USC § 1541 - Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
This makes it pretty clear that the President of the United States cannot violate the Constitution of the United States unilaterally and with impunity without risking impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors within the United States, and possibly facing war crimes against humanity in an international tribunal.
Why does Congress appear to be afraid to take necessary action under the Constitution of the United States?
The short answer is because they are corrupt and cowardly. More afraid of losing their cushy positions or going against their party’s leadership to uphold their sworn duty to the Constitution. It appears that Congress, both the democrats and the republicans are unwilling to take an up or down vote because it could: one, make them accountable in a court of international jurisdiction where they have no immunity for their actions; two, indicate to the American people where they stand when it is patently clear that all of the facts as to the chemical agent used, the delivery method of the chemical agent, and who perpetrated the chemical attack are all unknown; and three, it could put them on the wrong side of history when it comes to the consequences of their actions. Possibly increasing the strength of al Qaeda-linked terrorists who have infiltrated the rebels and who might engage in ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of innocents if and when they depose the Assad regime and assume power.
By acting, the members of Congress also loses the right to complain about the consequences of any unintended consequences or misadventures should something go wrong and American or allied interests are attacked. Since all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection during the 2014 congressional election cycle, they are scared to take any action that would convey a political advantage to their opposition and see them voted out of office.
Bottom line …
We are living in difficult times, where professional politicians put their own self-interests above their sworn duties to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These men are not patriots – they are pussies!
The basic oath of office …
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This is separate from trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
We are not the policemen of the world, nor are we moral arbiters of religious civil wars. We have a situation where both parties are Islamic, are bad actors, and have little or no regard for human life. There is absolutely no reason for the United States to intervene when the United Nations and the Arab League refuse to get involved.
And, there is absolutely no justification to attack Syria to bolster the President’s ego or boost the credibility of the United States. Especially when such credibility could be exerted in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
Personally, I believe the Syrian conflict is a win-win for humanity as Islamic Jihadists kill one another on a foreign battlefield. I also believe that the majority of Congress, especially the corrupt, progressive socialist democrats, should be tossed out of Congress for their actions in both foreign and domestic policies.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Senator John McCain is not a Republican, he is not even a Republican In Name Only,” is is a progressive socialist democrat who does not appear to understand the Constitution of the United States …
“This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office and so where is America’s credibility? Where is our ability to influence events in the region?” ~ John McCain
Excuse me! Did I miss the part of the Constitution that allows the President of the United States to tell a foreign sovereign leader he needs to leave office – and to back that up with the United States military? Is John McCain that much of a progressive schmuck to not realize that America, under Barack Hussein Obama, has lost its credibility because Obama has no leadership skills, is afraid to take any action that would hold him responsible for the results of his action, and blames others for his ineptness. Probably because no speechwriter could ghost a coherent military policy and put it on Obama’s TelePrompTer.
And, McCain the military man – just barely according to all published accounts – should know that you do not use military might and American soldiers to bolster the President’s ego and his tattered reputation.
“[Those] who say we should stay out of Syria do not understand that this is now a regional conflict” that is increasingly “getting worse,” he said. “And what is the president’s policy? What is the president’s policy?”
What? McCain, the schmuck, believes that the United States should intervene in a civil war that has little or nothing to do with America and American citizens. Truth-be-told, both sides are corrupt Muslims willing to kill each other with impunity. And, if you look closely, Assad the bad guy was accepting of minorities and Coptic Christians, whereas the other side wants to ethnically cleanse the minorities and Coptic Christians – not to mention impose strict Sharia law. Oh, did I mention that the rebels are associated with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
This is a no-win situation for America. Perhaps Obama and McCain have been purchased by the Saudis or the Emir of Qatar – because we sure don’t have a dog in this fight.
Bottom line …
Even the British Parliament told their leadership: No! Do not attack Syria. If President Obama attacks Syria without Congressional Approval, he should be impeached and tried for war crimes – because he surely will have committed an unauthorized act of war against a sovereign nation that does not threaten America or her interests. It’s almost as if Obama wants to repeat Clinton’s harmless bombing of an aspirin factory to divert attention from being sanctioned for sexual abuse of an intern in the Oval Office.
And, if Obama does not get the word – let us also hold Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Brennan equally culpable.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Most of the people who walked off their job in fast food restaurants do not seem to have a firm grasp on reality …
Your employer operates a “convenience store” that is non-essential in the normal scheme of things as people have been preparing food at home since the dawn of time. In addition, there are any number of other “convenience” stores and pre-packaged food outlets.
Your employer has an abundant source of labor with each graduating class of seniors and the laws of supply and demand control the value of your job.
In all likelihood, your job was designed for an entry-level employee or part-time student or senior citizen. The only worthwhile jobs are managerial in nature, not preparing or serving food or maintaining the facility.
This is a transparent ploy by the unions to unionize low-skilled workers. It is not that the union actually cares for its members, it cares about dues, managing large healthcare and retirement funds, and the political power to corrupt politicians and coerce employers. This strike is a clear example of the union trying to flex their muscle.
And, while I feel sorry for your current economic situation, I did not tell you to have multiple children out of wedlock with multiple men who refuse to financially and emotionally support their progeny. Likewise, I did not curb your education and your opportunity to get a better paying skilled position – the teachers’ unions produced decades of functional illiterates that have no place to turn.
If you want to rise above your current situation, there are any number of government grants available, but you will have to work doubly hard to overcome what choices you have made.
I do not understand why you believe that I should pay more for my “Happy Meal” to support your poor choices and disadvantage myself or my family. This is not a socialist society where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is the operative guideline. And, I believe wealth distribution is charity at gunpoint and that a significant portion of any forced funding goes to the politicians and their special interests as “administrative fees.”
We pay enough for job training and college programs – some complete with babysitters and paid living expenses.
From the progressive media …
Why I'm on Strike Today: I Can't Support Myself on $7.85 at Burger King -- 'I know what it feels like to be afraid of having your children go to bed hungry or being evicted. But today is not scary; it's empowering.'
I've worked at fast-food restaurants in North Carolina for the past 15 years. I've spent more hours at Church's Chicken, McDonald's and now Burger King than I can remember. I work hard – I never miss a shift and always arrive on time. But today, I'm going on strike.
I make $7.85 at Burger King as a guest ambassador and team leader, where I train new employees on restaurant regulations and perform the manager's duties in their absence. Before Burger King, I worked at Church's for 12 years, starting at $6.30 and ending at just a little more than $8 an hour.
I've never walked off a job before. I don't consider myself an activist, and I've never been involved with politics. I'm a mother with two sons, and like any mom knows, raising two teenage boys is tough. Raising them as a single mother, on less than $8 an hour, is nearly impossible, though.
My boys, Tramaine and Russell Jr are now 20 and 21 years old. When they were in middle and high school, I had to work two fast-food jobs to make ends meet. Most days, I would put them on the bus at 6:30am before working a 9 to 4 shift at one restaurant, then a 5-close shift at another. If I had a day off, I was at their schools, checking in with their teachers and making sure they were keeping up with their education. I wanted them, when they were grown-up, to not have to work two jobs.
My hours, like many of my coworkers, were cut this year, and I now work only 25 to 28 hours each week. I can't afford to pay my bills working part time and making $7.85, and last month, I lost my house. Now, I go back and forth between staying with Russell Jr and Tramaine. I never imagined my life would be like this at this point. I successfully raised two boys, and now I'm forced to live out of their spare bedrooms. That's why I'm on strike today.
While the single mother mentioned above is to be congratulated for actually desiring to work instead of asking for government assistance, she might have noticed that she might do far better on government assistance than working. All because of government interference in the marketplace and the democrat desire to create perpetual political power through a permanent underclass.
In the story above, the worker proved the fallacy of a living wage as she successfully raised two children to adulthood on even lower wages. Of course, living expenses were not as highly inflated by government interference in the free market system.
I am sorry that you she is apparently a senior citizen and forced to live with your sons. But families have been forced to come together by the dire economic policies of the government. And,, there are only two things to blame for a person’s present circumstances – you and your past choices; and the democrats in government who have wasted billions and nothing was changed. Likewise, many employers are cutting hours and turning full-time positions into part-time positions due to the anticipation of that train wreck known as Obamacare – riddled with massive mistakes and implementation impossibilities.
The answer cannot be found within parasitic unions who produce nothing in return for stealing and mismanaging your money. And certainly the answer cannot be found within a corrupt government that cares not about people, but their self-interests and those of the special interests that keep them in power.
Look out for yourself and your family – the unions and progressive socialist democrats be damned – for what they have done in the past and for what they are about to do.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Why would President Barack Hussein Obama place the United States, its citizens and allies, at further risk from Jihadist retaliation from an unconstitutional act of war against a foreign sovereign nation and risk impeachment and a trial in the Senate for violating the Constitution of the United States?
Could it be the revelation that Obama’s battle against eligibility challenges are hitting a bumpy road? Revelations about Benghazi? Inoculation from 2014 charges that the democrats are weak on foreign policy and Obama lacks leadership skills? A threat against our economy?
Why would Obama risk disaster for no apparent reason? Ego? I don’t think even Obama is that much of a narcissist. Perhaps he wants to be impeached, before any real crimes come to the public’s attention. You never know with Obama – a man who would stand before the American public and the world and tell a big Benghazi lie about a non-existent protest over a little seen video. Something is going on behind the scenes – and it must be big. Big enough for Obama to risk a showdown with Congress.
But then again, he might just point to the Republicans and say “They kept me from protecting all those poor innocent Syrians.”
There is trouble on the horizon when one of the most progressive socialist democrats, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice openly warns Obama and others …
Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, issued the following statement on the prospect of the use of military force in Syria:
The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress -- not by the President. The decision to go to war -- and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war -- is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.
Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.
The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.
Historically, We did nothing in the face of genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan. We did nothing in 1988 when Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in Halabja, Iraq and used chemical weapons in Iraq’s war on Iran. No western power did anything more than bloviate. So why now?
Bottom line …
If Obama fires one Cruise Missile at Syria without Congressional approval, he is firing that Cruise Missile at the Constitution of the United States.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
Even to the dumbest of the dumb, when it comes to foreign policy, Joe Biden for instance, it is apparent to all that you cannot blame Israel for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ethnic cleansing of the Coptic Christians or Assad’s apparent gassing of his own people. These are Muslims fighting Muslims. And, if you look closely, there are no moderate or good Muslims to be found. Only dictators trying to protect their fiefdoms from al Qaeda-like terrorists. Hard to blame any of this on Israel. Israel did not create the intolerable conditions within these Muslim countries. Israel did not send “freedom fighters” to expand Sharia law and combine Islamic countries into a new Caliphate. And Israel, like Saudi Arabia is not funding both sides and hoping to walk away hand-in-hand with the winner in order to protect their corrupt Kingdom.
Certainly we can see the behind-the-scenes influence of both Saudi Arabia and Iran in the struggle – funding terrorist shock troops in the hopes that their own Kingdoms will not be overthrown.
Here in America, where is CAIR and the Moderate Minnesota Muslims decrying the violence as Coptic Christians are being ethnically cleansed? Not one damn word about anything from anyone.
It appears that the Palestinians are upset. They have that gasbag, John Kerry, talking about peace and the creation of a Palestinian state while chaos rains down on Muslim countries. Imagine that, Muslims fighting Muslims – and not a Jew to be found. Even the most corrupt Muslim sympathizer can’t point to Israel and say, once again, that it must be the Jews behind all of this fighting.
Does anyone else notice that whereas Israel took great precautions not to kill innocent civilians and to limit collateral damage, the radical Muslims simply don’t give a damn? Destroying men, women, and children with impunity. Attacking hospitals and Mosques if they support the opposition.
Where the hell is the progressive mainstream media. The best information is coming from the social media and the foreign press. Nothing but the stale old sound bites from ossified politicians. Perhaps someone should ask Kissinger or Madeline Albright how to resolve the problem. Surely these progressive academics know how to stop bloodthirsty Muslims engaged in Jihad.
So where is Obama? Leading from behind, or in reality – reading memos from Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Brennan – all apparently telling him to support the friends of Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood that reaches into former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s staff and allegedly has ties to his own Brother’s charity. Oh my! Oh my! Obama must take action or look like the complete, incompetent fool he appears to be. Time to pull out a page out of the Clinton play book and lob some Cruise Missiles at Syria.
Better yet, where is the corrupt and impotent United Nations? Surely they are up to the task of protecting Coptic Christians from ethnic cleansing. Like they did in Rwanda and the Sudan – whoops, forgot – they didn’t do a damn thing there either!
Bottom line …
With all of the Islamic chaos swirling about – who do they threaten if the United States attacks Syria – Israel. Only this time, the United States will not be able to push Israel into responding with a proportional response as they have done in the past. If these Islamic Jihadists attempt to attack Israel with chemical weapons, it may be that Israel will destroy their chemical stockpiles with nuclear weapons – the right way, incinerating the chemicals to keep them from being further dispersed. Not such a good deal in the blast radius for man or beast.
We are living in dangerous times. Where the Muslims can no longer point to Israel as the source of discord in the Middle East. They now own the conflagration they created and there is no third-party to blame. And, if the United States were smart, they would let these Jihadists kill each other until the fight spills over to something where America really has an interest. Then, drawing a really bright red line in blood if anyone dares step across it. Unfortunately, Barack Obama’s balls are in Valerie Jarrett’s pocket and the tough generals he fired are off doing something else.
That leaves only low level employees to blame when it all goes South on Obama’s watch.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it! "Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
