Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Syria’

Allen West responds to Obama: Don’t ‘lecture us about obligation’ after Benghazi


by

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/31/allen-west-responds-to-obama-dont-lecture-us-about-obligation-after-benghazi-82536

allen-west

President Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden Saturday afternoon that he would have Congress decide whether to militarily respond to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Former Republican Congressman Allen West began his Facebook response to this statement by reminding him where his most important obligations lay — protecting the American people.

“Sir, you turned your back on Americans in Benghazi, so do not pretend to lecture us about obligation,” West said, before launching into his analysis.

“He is afraid to make a decision so is now setting up Congress for the blame,” he continued. “We should not commit our Military because Obama said something stupid and especially since he does not have a strategic or operational objective.”

Abdication of responsibility as commander-in-chief? We were warned this would happen in 2008. Obama has a propensity for abdicating responsibility by voting “present,” and he did it again in his Rose Garden address.

West then made a not-so-gentle reminder of what events led to the escalation of violence in the Middle East — especially Syria.

“Perhaps if he had not decided to ‘end the Iraq War’ and left a residual force on the Iraq-Syrian border we would not have this situation,:” West observed. “I guess this is not so time sensitive, but it is a confirmation of Obama’s weakness.”

West closed his Facebook post with a firm statement of what his vote would be, if he were still serving in Congress.

“NO authorization for military action in Syria.”

West’s Benghazi reference is a reflection of his Friday post, in which he observed:

Consider the irony as we draw close to the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attack.

President Obama says the use of chemical weapons in Syria threatens our national security and we have an obligation to act.

In contrast, our US Consulate (sovereign American territory) was attacked in Benghazi, our Ambassador was killed along with Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALS (Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty) and the only indignation shown was over a video. Need I mention the ensuing lies?

But where was the obligation to act in response to Benghazi? The events in Syria are horrific to be sure, but to dismiss the attack and loss of American lives in Benghazi is unconscionable.

About Michael Dorstewitz
Mike has been with BizPac Review almost from the beginning. Email Mike at michael@bizpacreview and follow him on Twitter at @MikeBPR.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Ron Paul: Syria Intervention Would be “Reckless and Immoral” – The Last Resistance


by

It’s striking how much the media control people’s political opinions without people realizing it. Just a few years ago, only an “isolationist” would be opposed to U.S. military intervention in a foreign country for the sole purpose of “humanitarianism.”

Way back in 2007, this is one of the very few interviews Sean Hannity did with Ron Paul. This particular exchange took place after one of the presidential debates:

Hannity: Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions.

Hannity: You support that?

Paul: We have, on numerous occasions. If we feel strongly about it, why don’t we declare war —

Hannity: If a woman’s being raped do you stand by and do nothing there either?

Alan Colmes: We’re almost out of time, but the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything —

Hannity: We didn’t do anything about it, for how many years?

Paul: And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.

Hannity: We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not.

Paul: No, you —

Hannity: I think that’s immoral.

Hannity’s of course singing a much different tune nowadays, since being opposed to unconstitutional military interventions is kind of “cool” now. But Ron Paul was opposed to such interventions long before it was cool, and he’s remained steadfast for decades in his opposition.

A couple days ago, on his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website, he wrote that intervening in Syria would be a reckless and immoral use of the military:

“President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing. The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented ‘a serious danger to our national security.’ I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor, and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.”

He hasn’t changed one bit. But people’s foreign policy views change depending on what their media channel of choice is feeding them. And the media narratives are written depending on which party holds the White House.

If Bush had decided to attack Syria because the leader was gassing his own people, then conservatives, fed by Fox News, would be all for it; and the liberals, fed by all the other networks, would be denouncing it.

I’m glad that conservatives are coming out in opposition to a war with Syria. What concerns me is that people don’t have any discernment, and that they’ll believe whatever their favorite media network tells them.

What if a Republican becomes president next, and he’s no better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy or the preservation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments (and all the rest) here at home? Will conservatives see through the propaganda that will most certainly be used by the media to sell tyranny to us? They’ll use the same excuses of “security and safety.” And I fear that most people who identify themselves as conservatives will swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

The sooner people get away from this phony “republican vs. democrat” dichotomy, the better off we’ll all be. We should be electing people who want to do the right thing, not the “Republican” thing. Think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Justin Amash. Sure, they’re Republicans. But to them, party affiliation is secondary to the Constitution.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My 2 Cents – Jerry Broussard

  • Who decided that the United States of America is the world’s police?
  • If we are going to come to the rescue of a people, what didn’t we go to the aid of the Christians in the Sudan?
  • The evidence is confirmed many times that those responsible for the gas attack was the accidental mishandling of the chemical weapons give to the Syrian rebels by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who also was instrumental in confirming the false evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s weapons of mass destruction? Why can’t we see that Saudi Arabia is culpable in the entire mess in the Mid East?
  • The Obama Administration is buying into the same lies the were fed to the Bush Administration. Why aren’t we acknowledging that fact? What does Saudi Arabia have on our government that they always end up with “clean-hands”?
  • Fact: Russia, China and others have stated that they will defend Syria and will retaliate if America uses any military force against the Assad regime. That will cause a larger war American Military is NOT prepared to fight because the Obama Administration has decimated our military.
  • Fact: The only winner is such a conflict would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and China.
  • Fact: We cannot afford another war.
  • Fact: 2014 Mid Term Elections are growing in importance every day.
  • Fact: America is in desperate need of a Spiritual revival that will change the spirits, hearts and minds of the people of the United States to use what means are moral and necessary to rid our country of the evil that has such a death-grip on our Federal, State and Local governments.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Don’t Send Our Troops to Syria! – SHARE IF YOU AGREE!


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/dont-send-troops-syria-share-agree/#RwkddmBsFw2iho14.99

Don't Send Our Troops

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Most Important Article About Syria Ever


By / http://eaglerising.com/1523/important-article-syria-ever/

Syria-PlanHerman Cain is a very smart guy.

He recently posted a fake Facebook conversation the president had with some very important politicians.

As I read through the fake convo, I found myself laughing out loud; but as I finished, the laughter turned to introspection.

The fake conversation wasn’t so fake… it was based on reality and only slightly blurred at the edges…which got me to thinking about the hypocrisy some of us exhibit in our politics.

Liberals like to pretend that Republicans are always searching for ways to increase the power of the executive branch – which is why so many of them got antsy when Iran started “posturing” during the Bush years. Crazy Uncle Joe (Biden) went so far as to threaten impeachment if President Bush didn’t seek authorization from Congress before invading Iran.

Yet Bush had sought authorization on both Afghanistan and Iraq, so why were they so concerned he wouldn’t for Iran? Honestly, I don’t think Biden or the Democrats cared either way – it was simply a way to push the narrative that President Bush was an authoritarian incognito.

Syria ConvoWill the left gnash their teeth and wail about separation of powers if President Obama bypasses Congressional authorization to attack Syria? I doubt it.

Time Magazine points out the hypocrisy of Obama’s Syria intervention in a recent article, quoting 2007 Barack Obama telling the world that President Bush didn’t have the authority to attack Iran. Here is the money quote in all its glory: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.” That’s really interesting Mr. President… but in 2013 everything is different, huh?

Further down in the fake conversation, the creator points out how all of the Democrat “clucking” about how the world hated President Bush didn’t amount to much once they took the lead. Hillary famously called for a Russian “re-set”, yet our relations with Russia are worse today than they have been since before the end of the cold war. President Obama was supposed to get dialogue going with China and smooth out the rough edges of our relationship with them through the strength of his indomitable will and charming personality. Today we owe China more than ever and they are posturing for war with Japan and Taiwan… and by extension… us? When will American voters learn that Democrat policies in dealing with foreign powers create the image of a double-minded, wavering America? It makes us look like the parent who threatens to punish but never follows through because they want their kids to “like” them, when all they’re doing is building up resentment towards their weakness in their kids.

The finish of the conversation is great because it’s true. Harry Reid will always cover for the administration – that has been his job since day one of the Obama Presidency, always provide legislative cover for the abusive Obama regime. Senator Rand Paul continues to stick to his principles, even when it’s not popular with his own Party… isn’t that the kind of politician Americans are always saying they want? Joe Biden is crazy and offering advice that will get you arrested. (Seriously, it got this guy arrested.) And Hillary Clinton lets everyone know who is really in charge…

I don’t know who came up with this convo, but it’s spot on and the creator should be applauded.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See


By Michael Snyder via TEC // http://www.officialteapartyusa.com/pt/25-Quotes-About-The-Coming-War-With-Syria-That-Every-American-Should-See.8-30-2013/blog.htm#.UiC6JlTHMw4.facebook

Aircraft-Carrier-War-With-Syria-300x300

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British.  Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take “unilateral action” against Syria.  But what good would “a shot across Syria’s bow” actually do?  A “limited strike” is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria.  Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad.  Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages.  Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters?  There is no good outcome in Syria.  The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse.  Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn’t as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country.  At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam.  It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria.  On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals.  And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the “rebels” in Syria.

But there was a problem.  The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels.  So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the “moral justification” that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels.  In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today.  The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this…

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it.  In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on “intelligence”, but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious.  WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn’t we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive.  As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was.  It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch.  They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless.  They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States.  I don’t think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now.  The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see…

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: “The president has no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked.  And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: “Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution.”

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: “I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America.”

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: “While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.”

6. The New York Times: “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.”

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: “The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States.”

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: “I definitely believe there needs to be a vote.”

9. Donald Rumsfeld: “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation.”

10. Robert Fisk: “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.”

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: “So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?”

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: “We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves.”

13. A Syrian Army officer: “We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people.”

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba’ath Party official: “We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding.”

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: “A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel.”

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: “…the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war.”

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences”

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) “means the immediate destruction of Israel.”

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: “Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force.”

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength.”

21. The Jerusalem Post: “The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday.”

22. Ron Paul: “The danger of escalation with Russia is very high”

23. Pat Buchanan: “The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.”

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: “We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something.”

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: “Isn’t it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Growing Evidence Supports Syrian Rebels Launched Chemical Attacks


WWW.FREEDOMOUTPOST.COM

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/growing-evidence-supports-syrian-rebels-launched-chemical-attacks/

 

By Dean Garrison

America needs to talk now. It can’t wait until tomorrow. It can’t wait until our lousy elected servants decide to debate the subject. There are warships headed toward Syria now and Russia is preparing to counter. This could lead to World War III and I don’t know how else to put it… YOU AND YOUR FAMILY COULD DIE FOR THESE IDIOTS. This could cost millions of lives because if Russia and China get involved, which could very well happen, this war will not be pretty. We are talking about a real possibility of nuclear weapons being used and American civilians dying.

Let’s dispense with the partisan politics and call it what it is. There is evidence to suggest that Barack Obama would not be the first president to put us into a war under false pretenses and it is not an accusation that can be placed solely on Democrats. So let go of that and let’s come together as a country right now to talk about what is potentially about to happen, unless we get loud enough to stop it. By now most of us have heard that warships are moving in and that a cruise missile attack, though not imminent, is possible or even likely.

I want to walk you through some growing evidence and then I will leave it up to you. This is your country. If you care about this country then you will get loud and do it quickly. There is no time to waste. Share the articles and videos. Get in touch with your elected reps. Go to TV stations. Hand out flyers. Do whatever you have to do to stop this war from happening. Act as if your life depends on it. Because it very well might.

Washington D.C. and our mainstream media have presented ZERO proof that Assad was behind these attacks. The information I am about to show you will not provide 100% proof that Syrian Rebels are responsible for launching these attacks, but please consider this… It is more proof then we are getting from the other side.

Two days ago a startling confession came from a former member of Al-Nusra. They have chemical weapons and are intent on using them. This is the side which we are supporting. NSNBC International reports:

Abdola Al-Jaledi, a former high-ranking member of the Jabhat al-Nusrah front has revealed on his Twitter account @abo_almonthir, that his Jabhat al-Nusrah colleagues are in possession of chemical weapons, reports the independent Syrian Dampress Online Journal. 

A former member of the al-Qaeda associated, foreign-backed Jabhat al-Nusrah front which is fighting the Syrian Armed Forces in an attempt to oust the Syrian government to establish an Islamic Sharia state, has admitted that Jabhat al-Nusrah is in possession of chemical weapons, to be used in attacks in Syria.

The Syrian Dampress Online Journal reports, that the Saudi Arabian terrorist, Abdola al-Jaledi has recently revealed on his Twitter account, @abo_almonthir, that his colleagues are storing toxic agents.

Al-Jaledi, who is a former, high-ranking member of the Jabhat al-Nusrah has reportedly left the al-Nusrah to continue fighting with another, also al-Qaeda associated brigade.

On his Twitter account, Al-Jaledi apparently said: ”If it was not for confidentiality on this matter, I would reveal who was the fighter who made the said chemical bombs”.

On Thursday, Syrian television released two intercepted telephone conversations among members of the so-called “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” and their Saudi Arabian liaison, the Egypt based financier Adulbasit, in which the terrorists were admitting that the group had used chemical weapons in Deir Balba, in the countryside of Homs.The revelations occur as an international campaign, led primarily by the USA, UK and France, in the attempt to justify an illegal military aggression against Syria intensifies.

Now let’s turn the clock back to January when a story broke that suggested the U.S. was planning a chemical weapons attack in Syria to frame Assad. Here is a quote from the original story as printed by InfoWars:

Alleged hacked emails from defense contractor Britam reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime, fulfilling what the Obama administration has made clear is a “red line” that would mandate US military intervention.

The leaked emails, obtained by a hacker in Germany, feature an exchange (click here for screenshot) between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;

Phil

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

 We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

 Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards

David

The fact that the plan involves delivering a CW (chemical weapon) that is “similar to those Assad should have,” clearly suggests that the idea is to stage a false flag chemical weapons attack that could be blamed on Assad by Gulf states like Qatar and NATO powers.

If the claim that such as plot was “approved by Washington” can be verified, then the Obama administration is complicit in a war crime.

Say what you want about Alex Jones but he was on this story 7 months ago while you were eating cheetos and watching prime time TV. If you must discount this source then go ahead. There is plenty of other evidence that is mounting.

Thank God for Jerome Corsi of WND.com. He is probably my favorite journalist because he has zero fear. He only wants the truth to come out. Corsi delivered on Monday Night with his own scathing collection of evidence that the Syrian Rebels are responsible for these attacks.

Corsi reports:

Assad has rejected charges that his government forces used chemical weapons as “preposterous” and “completely politicized,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

He argues Syrian forces were in the targeted area.

“How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?” Assad asked in the interview with Izvestia, according to a translation provided by Syria’s official news agency and published by the Los Angeles Times.

“This is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicized and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.”

Rebel attack?

With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.

A video posted on YouTube, embedded below, shows Free Syrian Army, or FSA, rebel forces launching a Sarin gas attack on a Syrian village.

The above link will open in a new window, so you can read the article and return if you wish. Corsi has multiple videos and some really good information that casts serious doubts on the Obama Administration’s claim that this attack came from Assad.

 

Finally, I would like to present a video that is the best I have seen thus far. It puts together much of what we know and also provides valuable links to resources that will back up the idea that this was nothing more than a set up with heavy U.S. involvement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbfcceEkn_M&feature=player_embedded

 

Look my friends, this is one of the most unpolished pieces of writing you will ever see but it has to get out. I do not have time to find perfect words. Lately it has been tough to find time to shower (we have newborn twins). I didn’t have time to dig up every single piece of evidence available. I wanted to put enough in front of people to shed some doubt.

My belief is that Obama is putting 300+ million Americans in harm’s way and I had to do something to try to get the word out. Let us give up this stupid liberal/conservative crap for a moment and call this what it is.

We may soon be fighting for our very survival.

We cannot allow this to happen to America. Somehow, we have to stop it this time.

These people work for us and 92% of Americans do not want us involved in Syria with either side, from what I have heard. I do not have the source for that statistic but I do not need one to know that most people are against this. I have yet to meet a person that is for it.

Finally we have something that democrats and republicans will agree on…WE HAVE NO BUSINESS IN SYRIA, PERIOD!!!

Now get out there and raise some hell. We have to stop asking these leaders to listen to us. We must demand it.

I know a lot of people feel tired and defeated now. I feel that way myself a lot. But tired and defeated is better than dead any day.

I don’t know how to wake people up but I have to keep trying and you do too. When we are putting our hopes in Vladimir Putin to keep his composure then we all know that something is very wrong in America.

It has to stop and it has to stop now.

About Dean Garrison Dean Garrison is editor and writer at DCClothesline.com. He is a conservative independent who seeks only to recover the truth.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Arab Spring: Worst soap ever


Arab Spring: Worst soap ever

I didn’t care for the “Arab Spring,” but the “Arab Summer” is a blockbuster!

Liberals’ rosy predictions for Egypt’s Islamic revolution didn’t turn out as planned. Who could have guessed that howling mobs in Tahrir Square in 2011 would fail to produce a peaceful democracy?

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel’s right to exist. So naturally, Obama told him he had to go.

Let’s review what liberals said at the time about that glorious people’s revolution — only from The New York Times:

– “(Egyptian) Officials blamed the Muslim Brotherhood (for the protests). … Even if the Brotherhood had a role — the group denies it; the truth seems more complex — it is easy to understand why Egyptians are fed up.” (Editorial: “Mr. Mubarak Is Put on Notice,” Jan. 26, 2011)

– “The mistake, which still emanates from think tanks stocked with neoconservatives, is assuming that democracy can come at the end of sword. … Now that some of the dominoes appear to be falling, this has more to do with Facebook and the frustrations of young, educated adults who can’t earn enough money to marry than it does with tanks rolling into Baghdad, or naive neocons guiding the State Department.” (Timothy Egan, “Bonfire of American Vanities,” Feb. 3, 2011)

– “It’s time to be clear: Mubarak’s time is up.” (Roger Cohen, “Hosni Mubarak Agonistes,” Feb. 4, 2011)

– “What is unfolding in Arab streets is not an assertion of religious reaction but a yearning for democracy with all its burdens and rewards.” (Ray Takeyh, “What Democracy Could Bring,” Feb. 4, 2011)

Oops! Within less than a year, we found out that the truth wasn’t “complex”: The Muslim Brotherhood was behind the revolution. They rigged an election and were planning to implement Sharia law — until the Egyptian military stepped in on behalf of the people this year and removed the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi as president.

In Arab countries, at least, it seems that democracy can come only “at the end of a sword.”

Also in 2011, Obama ordered air strikes in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi — at the precise moment Gadhafi was no longer a threat to anyone. After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi promptly gave up his nuclear program and invited U.N. weapons inspectors in to prove it. Apparently, he wasn’t interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.

Obama’s bombing of Gadhafi was also enthusiastically supported at the Times. Gadhafi, you see, had killed hundreds of his own people. Meanwhile, President Bashar Hafez al-Assad of Syria can preside over the slaughter of more than 100,000 of his people since that time without a cross word from the left.

Libyan people proceeded to stalk and kill Gadhafi in the desert (video on YouTube). A year later, the happy people of Libya murdered our ambassador and three other Embassy staff. But as Hillary said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

After all their carping about the Iraq War, you’d think liberals would have waited a few years before getting sentimental about democracy in Egypt and Libya. At least democracy is working in Iraq, despite Obama’s attempt to wreck it by withdrawing all U.S. troops. (We still have troops in Germany — but not in Bush’s Iraq.) Still, our ambassador wasn’t assassinated in Baghdad.

Speaking of which, what is the geopolitical strategy behind Obama’s sending more troops to Afghanistan? The 9/11 attack was not committed by Afghanistan. That country has no history of exporting terrorism. Afghans have traditionally been the invaded, not the invaders. They’re too busy herding goats.

The 9/11 attack was planned by foreigners who had decamped to Afghanistan. Although the Taliban was eager for al-Qaida’s help in fighting the Northern Alliance, it had no interest in attacking America. Mullah Omar dissented from Osama bin Laden on that brilliant idea.

It was one thing to go in and wipe out the Taliban after 9/11 in retaliation for their allowing bin Laden to set up shop there, but what was the point after that? Three months into President Bush’s war in Afghanistan, we had accomplished all we were ever going to accomplish in that godforsaken area of the world.

To quote one of liberals’ favorite arguments against the Iraq War: What does victory in Afghanistan look like?

The one place Obama should have intervened was Iran. The moderate, pro-Western, educated Iranian people were being shot in the street in 2010 for protesting an election stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a messianic lunatic in a Members Only jacket. There was a clear alternative in that case that didn’t involve the Muslim Brotherhood, to wit: the actual winner of the election.

But Obama turned his back on the Iranians. Democrats are so opposed to promoting the United States’ interests around the globe, it doesn’t occur to them that, sometimes, our national interests might coincide with the interests of other people.

Liberals made fun of Sarah Palin for not being able to define “the Bush doctrine.” Can Obama tell us what “the Obama doctrine” is? Leap in only to make the rest of the world a more dangerous place? At least Egyptians are safe now, thanks to their military and no thanks to Obama.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

When It Comes to Syria — President Obama is a War Criminal


Christian_church,_Aleppo,_Syria

By / http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/when-it-comes-to-syria-president-obama-is-a-war-criminal/#ixzz2XvT6Ve4o

 

By now it has become glaringly obvious that the Syrian rebels are an Islamic medley of murderous thugs bent on eradicating Christians from Syria. These soulless mutts are following the bloody paradigm set by the Prophet Mohammed as they rape, torture, mutilate and slaughter “the people of the book.”

The Vatican news agency Agenzia Fides filed a 2012 report concerning the rebels savage assault on the Christian community in Syria: “Christian neighborhoods  like Bab Touma , Qatana, the Christian Quarters of Damascus, Hamidiye, and neighborhoods  of Allepo such as Sulaymaniya, Al Jarbiriya, Al Tilal, Villas, and many others have been targeted with bomb attacks and snipers that kill and injure hundreds of innocent bystanders.”

More recently the rebels beheaded a Christian father of two – and then proceeded to feed his body to a pack of wild dogs. As the rebels watched the innocent man’s body being devoured – they shouted (in rhapsodic unison) “Allah Akbar.”

Former Muslim Brotherhood  member Walid Shoebat (now a peace activist) reported last December that over 80, 000 Christians were violently removed from the city of Homs. This – of course – is in addition to the plethora of church desecrations and car bombings that take place on a routine basis in all Christian enclaves.

Not to mention the Christian schools that have been attacked while in session. After all – a steadfast Muslim (obedient to Koranic dogma) would never pass up the opportunity to massacre little “infidels” before they grow up to be big “infidels.”

So, with full knowledge of what is being perpetrated on the Christians of Syria (at the hands of the rebels) – what has President Obama decided to do?

Well, he has decided to give the rebels $815 million in aid and weapons.

That’s right – $815 million of our tax dollars to a hodgepodge of Allah’s assassins who are committing the wholesale extermination of Christians.

It is vividly clear (even to the hopelessly obtuse and moronic) that the Syrian rebels are guilty of war crimes against the Christians of Syria. Therefore, it only makes sense that any individual who aids these barbarians is also culpable of war crimes.

And that (without question) includes a man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

Image: Christian church, Aleppo, Syria; source: Christian church, Aleppo, Syria; author: James Gordon from Los Angeles, California, USA; Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

SECOND SOURCE:

From the Fides News Agency (news agency of the Vatican)

On Sunday, June 23 the Syrian priest François Murad was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge. This is confirmed by a statement of the Custos of the Holy Land sent to Fides Agency. The circumstances of the death are not fully understood. According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra.
Father François, 49, had taken the first steps in the religious life with the Franciscan Friars of the Custody of the Holy Land, and with them he continued to share close bonds of spiritual friendship. After being ordained a priest he had started the construction of a coenobitic monastery dedicated to St. Simon Stylites in the village of Gassanieh.After the start of the Civil War, the monastery of St. Simon had been bombed and Fr. Murad had moved to the convent of the Custody for safety reasons and to give support to the remaining few, along with another religious and nuns of the Rosary.

“Let us pray,” writes the Custos of the Holy Land Pierbattista Pizzaballa OFM ” so that this absurd and shameful war ends soon and that the people of Syria can go back to living a normal life.” Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo, titular of the Syrian Catholic archeparchy in Hassaké-Nisibis reports to Fides: “The whole story of Christians in the Middle East is marked and made fruitful by the blood of the martyrs of many persecutions. Lately, father Murad sent me some messages that clearly showed how conscious he was of living in a dangerous situation, and offered his life for peace in Syria and around the world. ” .

WARNING: The following video is graphic and not for the faint of heart. It is the actual beheadings;   http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_1372329728

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rand Paul Slams John McCain For Posing With Kidnappers


by

Politics_RandMcCain_603_480x360

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took questions at the Reagan Library over the weekend he took a shot as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), whose trip to meet with Al-Qaeda operatives in Syria, under the cloak that they are Syrian rebels, sparked an outcry from American patriots. Paul said that since McCain had his picture taken with kidnappers, he didn’t know how good of a job the Federal government is doing in vetting those who would receive arms in Syria.

 

A reporter asked Paul, who is as a member of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, what he thought the top priority for foreign affairs of the United States is.

“I think the top priority for the country constitutionally, historically, and appropriately is defense of the country. That’s what we’re supposed to do in Washington,” he answered to applause.

Paul continued,

“That being said, Reagan’s motto was ‘Peace through strength,’ it wasn’t ‘War through strength.’”

Paul went on to elaborate on this saying that, “There are some, sometimes in our party, who mistake war for defense. If you don’t believe in eternal and perpetual war doesn’t mean you don’t believe in a strong national defense.”

“This is an important distinction,” he added.

Paul then spoke about some in the Republican Party that wanted to give money to Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya and then a year later wanted to provide money and resources to rebels to overthrow the Libyan leader. “There’s a certain inconsistency,” he commented.

The Kentucky Senator then spoke about his concern with getting involved in a new war in Syria.

“Well people say Assad is such a bad guy,” Paul said. “He is, but on the other side we have al-Qaeda and now Nusra and they say, ‘there are some pro-Western people, and we’re going to vet them. Well apparently we had a senator over there who had his picture taken with some kidnappers, so I don’t know how good a job we’re doing vetting those who are going to get the arms.”

Again, applause erupted because Senator Paul was simply pointing out the truth. I’ll add he should have called for John McCain to be brought up on charges of treason for standing alongside and giving aid to the enemy of America.

Paul then pointed out two ironies that must be overcome if the US wants to get involved in the war in Syria. Here are the ironies:

  1. You will be allied with al-Qaeda
  2. Most of the Christian are on the other side

“You may well be arming Islamic rebels who may well be killing Christians,” he said. “Does that make Assad a good person? No. I don’t think there are any good people in this world and there’s some tragically innocent people who are going to be caught in the middle.”

“I just don’t know that our arming one side is going to make the tragedy any less,” Paul added. “So I think we need to be careful.”

I agree with Paul’s comments. They are level headed and the right way to be thinking about what is taking place. However, I’ll add just one more thing. There is no “may well” when it comes to arming Islamists in that area. We have done it. My guess is this administration, the Democrats and the RINOs will be more than willing to side with one Islamic group against another and spill the blood of Americans, not seeing past the vacuum that will be created in an Assad defeat which will be quickly filled by the Muslim Brotherhood. We’ve already seen it in Egypt and in Libya. What makes anyone think Syria would be any different?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/rand-paul-slams-john-mccain-for-posing-with-kidnappers/#ixzz2VTyZ1hJ5

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

President Bush Was Correct. WMD’s Did End Up In Syria


Lawmakers demand ‘action’ in Syria after intel confirms chemical weapons use

Published April 25, 2013

FoxNews.com

Top-ranking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle declared Thursday that the “red line” in Syria has been crossed, calling for “strong” U.S. and international intervention after administration officials revealed the intelligence community believes chemical weapons were used.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, were among those urging swift action.

McCain, who has long called for more involvement in Syria, voiced concern that the administration would use “caveats” to avoid acting on the new intelligence. He said America’s enemies are paying “close attention” to whether the U.S. follows through, as the White House signaled it wanted to see more proof before responding to the new information.

“I worry that the president and the administration will use these caveats as an excuse not to act right away or act at all,” McCain told Fox News. “The president clearly stated that it was a red line and that it couldn’t be crossed without the United States taking vigorous action.”

He called for the U.S. to help establish a no-fly zone and “safe zone” in Syria, as well as provide weapons to the “right people.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel first revealed the intelligence assessment, which was detailed in a letter to select members of Congress, while speaking to reporters on a visit to Abu Dhabi. The administration then released those letters, which said U.S. intelligence determined with varying degrees of confidence that “the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

Secretary of State John Kerry further confirmed that there were two documented instances of chemical weapons use.

The White House, however, stressed that this was not enough to confirm how the nerve gas was released — though acknowledged it is “very likely” to have originated with the regime of Bashar Assad — and pressed the United Nations for a “comprehensive” investigation. The letter from the White House director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the assessment was based in part on “physiological samples.”

A White House official also urged caution, invoking the Iraq war as an example of why the administration should be absolutely certain before going forward.

“Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to WMD, it’s very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to provide information that is airtight … to underpin all of our decision-making,” the official said. “That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is.”

A senior U.S. defense official told Fox News the Defense Department has been preparing a wide range of contingency plans for military involvement in Syria for the past year. President Obama has seen the plans and is fully aware of those options.

The options, according to this official, range from establishing no-fly zones to creating humanitarian zones to launching strikes on chemical weapons sites, select regime leadership and other targets. The official emphasized that no decisions have been made about whether to further involve the U.S. military in Syria and that there are still many questions that need to be answered first.

A United Nations spokesman said the chemical weapon findings reinforce the need for U.N. officials to “be given the requested swift and unfettered access to Syria that it needs to determine whether chemical weapons have indeed been used.”

McCain, speaking to Fox News, said in his view the red line “was crossed.”

Feinstein, an important voice on matters of intelligence and security, also said it is “clear” those lines have been crossed and “action must be taken to prevent larger scale use.”

She added, in a statement: “Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action which results in the secure containment of Syria’s significant stockpile of chemical weapons. On the basis of this new assessment, which is matched by France and the United Kingdom, I urge the United Nations Security Council — including Russia — to finally take strong and meaningful action to end this crisis in Syria.”

President Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would be a “game-changer” in the U.S. position on intervening in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Obama said last August that “a red line for us” would be the movement or use of chemical weapons, adding “that would change my calculus.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reacting to the reports Thursday, said the “number one” goal should be to “secure the chemical weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.”

“I think the red line’s been crossed and the question is, now what?” Graham said on Fox News.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also said in a statement the assessment is “deeply troubling and, if correct, means that President Obama’s red line has certainly been crossed.”

But Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., argued that it is not in the United States’ “best interest” to go into Syria. “We cannot be absolutely sure about the extent to which Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons, although we know they have them,” he said in a statement.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said more information is needed.

“Precisely because the president takes this issue so seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria,” she said in a statement. “That is why we are currently pressing for a comprehensive United Nations investigation that can credibly evaluate the evidence and establish what took place. We are also working with our friends and allies, and the Syrian opposition, to procure, share and evaluate additional information associated with reports of the use of chemical weapons so that we can establish the facts.”

Asked if this crossed a “red line” for the U.S., Hagel likewise said they are still trying to assess.

“It violates every convention of warfare,” he said.

In a statement Thursday, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that he takes the letter to Congress “seriously,” but that the UN is not in a position to comment on assessments based on national intelligence information.

“Senior advisers at UN Headquarters have been in contact with the US authorities on the latest developments,” the spokesperson said. “The Secretary-General has already put together a technical expert team to conduct a fact-finding mission to look into all serious allegations of the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria.”

According to the spokesperson, the fact-finding team is on stand-by and ready to deploy in 24-48 hours.

“The Secretary-General has consistently urged the Syrian authorities to provide full and unfettered access to the team. He renews this urgent call today.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/#ixzz2Rb7AJs4x

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Shipped to Syria, Before Our Invasion, Used By Syrian Government Against It’s Own People


Guess where Syria’s chemical weapons originate

chlorine-596x283

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely says he has confirmation that Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians, and those weapons are likely stockpiles received from Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion 10 years ago.

Vallely has met twice in the region with military commanders for the Free Syrian Army, which he describes as the largest and much more moderate faction among the rebels, which also include elements of al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. He also gets regular reports from a Canadian medical team. Vallely told WND that team is certain that a chlorine gas weapon was used in recent strikes.

“From what I received from the Canadian medical team who works out of Aleppo is that is was chlorine and that what you saw were the reactions on those videos that were put out within the last week,” Vallely said. “The chlorine, the choking, the skin, depending on the density of the chlorine will cause skin irritation. If it’s mixed with other types of gases too, then it could have an even more enhanced effect on the human body, not only breathing but on the skin.”

Vallely believes the chemical weapons are clearly the work of the Assad regime and that the regime will try to pin the blame on the rebels. He said this is not the first time that the beleaguered government has turned WMD on its own people and that he has evidence of a similar attack last summer.

Continue Reading on www.wnd.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud