Category: 0.01% ELITES ROTHSCHILD ROCKEFELLER etc.



3dtextBreakingNews

Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report

Senator warns South Carolina is nuclear bomb target following Infowars report on black ops nuke transfer

Alex Jones & Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
September 5, 2013

Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day that our exclusive high level military intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas airforce base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer.

Found in the CBS report entitled ‘Graham: Nukes In Hands Of Terrorists Could Result In Bomb Coming To Charleston Harbor’, the report details Graham’s warning that a lack of military action in Syria could result in a nuclear ‘bombing’ in Charleston, South Carolina — the very destination of the black ops nuclear transfer. The CBS report reads:

“He [Graham] says if there is no U.S. response [to Syria], Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.”

Graham is quite literally saying that if we do not launch a war with Syria, South Carolina may be nuked. And this ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war, or at the very least a threat. Except this time, we’re talking about nuclear weapons. Amazingly, we were the first to get intel on this from our credible and extremely high level military source, who told us the following:

“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”

This was sent to us before the Graham report came out warning about the nuclear attack on South Carolina, and coincides exactly with what Graham is saying. I am deeply concerned by these findings, andask everyone to spread the word on this information immediately. Whether or not Graham is receiving intel from higher ups and believes in a legitimate terror attack on the horizon is unknown, but the reality here is that we have intelligence that has linked the unsigned transfer of nuclear warheads to this exact location.

Here is the video report we did on Tuesday regarding the missing nuclear warheads:

Now, we need answers.

The entire event is eerily similar to the unsigned nuke transfer that is now known as the ’2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident’, in which nuclear warheads went ‘missing’ from Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base back in August of 2007. The Minot event, however, was major national news and was even covered by the mainstream media extensively. Disturbingly, however, numerous individuals from the base began dying like flies and committing suicide after the event — and that’s even when it was in the mainstream.

Hopefully, this entire thing will amount to nothing and pass by without any form of ‘terror’ attack. Hopefully the attendee during the speech who told the US News publication that Graham’s speech was‘absolute fear mongering’ is right. Unfortunately, the military source revealing this information is extremely accurate and is absolutely certain that a black ops nuclear transfer did indeed take place. And what’s more concerning is the fact that we have not heard from the source in quite some time.

We are risking our lives bringing you this report on the high level intel and connecting the dots here to what Lindsay is saying. You won’t hear about this in the mega media unless we force them to cover it, and it’s up to us to get this out there. For the first time, we may be able to utilize this high level intelligence to get answers and stop a potential attack.

3dtextBreakingNews


The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
September 6, 2013

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The Obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal Bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and Obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the Bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not Obama and John Kerry impeached? The Obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the Obama regime is worse. The Obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The Obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal Obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36116.htm

The Obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the Obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister David Cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, Cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to Obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Top Chemical Weapons Expert Highly Skeptical of U.S. Case Against Syrian Government

Washington’s Blog
September 6, 2013

Jean Pascal Zanders is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s top chemical weapons experts, having been quoted in the last two weeks about Syrian chemical weapons by McClatchy, Time, theLos Angeles Times, Post-Gazette, Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, Agence France-Presse, Global Post, theTelegraph, and many other publications.

We interviewed Zanders by phone.

Q: You were quoted in the Huffington Post on August 30th as saying that the Youtube videos cited by the American government were not conclusive, as you couldn’t tell where or when the videos were taken … or even whether they were from the same incident or different incidents.

Do you still hold that view, or have you seen other videos that change your mind?

Zanders: No, I have not changed my mind. The general observation still stands, and it will stand until we have the actual report from the U.N. investigation.

I do not deny that a chemical with toxic chemicals has taken place. But I am just as concerned about how people are interpreting things in terms of a particular goal … which in this case is military intervention.

Living in a democracy we have the rule of of law, and we collect and analyze a variety of evidence collected at certain scenes before passing any kind of final judgment.

One of the concerns I have is if we look over the periods starting in March 19th with the major allegation of chemcial weapons use near Aleppo, Syria, everything is being reinterpreted as sarin.

When I look at video images that have been going around, what I see is a large number of people suffering from aspyhixia, but only a minority (if the photos are representative of the total picture) display symptoms that would correspond to exposures to neurotoxicants.

John Kerry used the term “signatures of sarin”. But signatures of sarin are things one can have from other organophosphorus compounds.

Q: You’re talking about the fact that pesticides or other nerve agents can give “false positives” for sarin? [Background]

Zanders: Yes, but not just that.

Somebody could have been – and this is purely hypothetical – exposed to an organophosphorus compound neurotoxicant which is produced in large volumes in industry. For example, for agricultural purposes.

On the low end of the spectrum, we have insecticide sprays which we can buy in the supermarkets. On the middle of the spectrum, we have organophosphorus compounds which are intermediaries of other products, or that are used in agriculture for pest and rodent control. I know specifically that the use of such compounds for pest and rodent control is common in the Middle East.

So, if someone were exposed to that in the right volume, there would be clear signatures of neurotoxicant exposure.

So it’s not just a question of false signatures in the sense of chemical tests giving a false positive, but also physiological symptoms that someone might show due to exposure to these commonly-used chemicals.

[The area where the chemical incident occurred was in a heavily-contested battle zone and had been heavily bombed. So that could have released industrial or agricultural chemicals.]

Q: Do you have any knowledge about whether the chain of custody of alleged U.S. tests which Kerry talked about are proper?

Zanders: No, and that’s part of my criticism that Western governments have overstated their case.

We do not know where the samples come from. And we do not know how representative they are for a certain area.

Certain samples could have been selectively given to Western sources for analysis. Assume that you do not know where a sample comes from … your whole chain of custody is compromised.

That’s why UN inspectors can only use samples they have collected themselves.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago saying that Prince Bandar got one alleged victim of chemical warfare out of the country, sent him to the UK, and that person is the basis of which the British made their claims about Syrian chemical weapons use. [Article.]

That goes to a single person. This is quite remarkable, if true.

Q: What other indications weaken the American, British and French argument that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack?

Zanders: The extreme focus on sarin – as if only government forces would be able to have sarin – doesn’t make sense. If the UN team were to come up with evidence that toxic chemicals other than sarin were used, does that prove that it was not the Syrian government which is responsible?

I personally don’t think that we have all the facts in right now to be absolutely certain. And I think this is reflected in the U.S. document with the terminology “high confidence” and David Cameron saying it’s his “judgment” or the government’s “judgment”, which reflects an interpretation of the facts.

In the U.S. document, there is not a single reference to physiological samples.

Postscript: Zanders says we must wait for the results from the U.N. weapons inspection before reaching any conclusions about who is responsible for the August 21st tragedy. [Background.]

 

ABC: Syrian Strike Could Be ‘Significantly Larger’ Than Most Anticipated

Washington Free Beacon
September 6, 2013

ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported President Obama’s plan for a Syrian strike could be “significantly larger” than most anticipated Thursday on “World News Tonight.”

Karl quoted an unnamed national security official who claimed the attack could do more damage to Assad in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years:

JONATHAN KARL: […] ABC News has learned the president’s national security team is preparing for a significantly larger military attack than most had anticipated. The air campaign which is expected to last at least two days will potentially include an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs fired from B-2 and B-52 bombers flying from the United States. That in addition to a relentless assault of Tomahawk missiles fired from those four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Those ships are loaded with nearly 200 missiles, plans call for firing the vast majority of them. As one senior national security official told ABC News, this military strike could do more damage to Assad’s forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war. That’s more than President Obama seemed to be suggesting just days ago.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What we are envisioning is something limited […] We send a shot across the bow saying stop doing this.

 

 

Pictured: John McCain caught playing POKER on his iPhone during crucial Senate hearing on whether to take military action in Syria

  • He makes light of the situation by joking he ‘lost thousands of dollars’
  • He was spotted playing the game by newspaper photographer

By DAVID MARTOSKO

PUBLISHED: 23:49 GMT, 3 September 2013

Call him Arizona Slim. Or just the Maverick.

While America’s most senior foreign policy and military officials made President Obama’s case for using military force against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain was busy playing poker on his iPhone.

A Washington Post photographer snapped an over-the-shoulder picture of McCain casually betting play money on his electronic cards, while Syria’s fate was the subject of passionate statements and often carefully manicured rhetoric.

Scroll down for video

Upping the ante: An eagle-eyed photographer captured a picture of Senator McCain playing poker on his phone during the critical hearing on Tuesday

Upping the ante: An eagle-eyed photographer captured a picture of Senator McCain playing poker on his phone during the critical hearing on Tuesday

Did I just fold the nuts? McCain did what millions of us do during boring meetings at work, but his meeting concerned something more weighty than the latest sales forecast for widgets

Did I just fold the nuts? McCain did what millions of us do during boring meetings at work, but his meeting concerned something more weighty than the latest sales forecast for widgets

Call, raise, or fold? McCain shuffled his chips while the Secretaries of State and Defense discussed the destruction of a Middle Eastern regime

Call, raise, or fold? McCain shuffled his chips while the Secretaries of State and Defense discussed the destruction of a Middle Eastern regime

Minutes after the Post published the photo online, McCain cracked a joke in the hope of limiting what is bound to be an embarrassing news cycle.

‘Scandal!’ read his sardonic tweet. ‘Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing – worst of all I lost!’

As the news broke, McCain was waiting to appear on CNN to discuss the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

‘Occasionally I get a little bored,’ he admitted on the air, ‘and so I resorted.’

CNN associate producer Ashley Killough tweeted afterward that McCain ‘said he lost "thousands" of fake dollars’ during the marathon Capitol Hill session.

Funny or die: The senior senator from Arizona chuckled through his keyboard, but not everyone will think it's so hilarious

Funny or die: The senior senator from Arizona chuckled through his keyboard, but not everyone will think it’s so hilarious

McCain was set to go on the air as the story broke about his funny-money poker habit

McCain was set to go on the air as the story broke about his funny-money poker habit

McCain may have been distracted by the presentations from Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. He had, after all, already made up his mind to side with the president and his request for authorization to bomb Syria.

‘If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this, after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic,’ McCain said after her emerged from a closed-door meeting with Obama on Tuesday morning, ‘in that the credibility of this country with friends and adversaries alike would be shredded.’

‘And there would be not only implications for this president, but for future presidencies as well.’

The next time McCain meets with he president, the two might have more to discuss than just foreign policy: Obama played a game of spades – with physical cards, not a hand-held phone – while Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Check your iPhone at the door: McCain was paying full attention earlier in the day, as he got a presidential briefing on Syria along with Susan Rice (L) and Lindsey Graham (R)

Check your iPhone at the door: McCain was paying full attention earlier in the day, as he got a presidential briefing on Syria along with National Security Advisor Susan Rice (L) and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)

For the benefit of poker fanatics, the Post’s photoshowed McCain calling a $200 bet while holding a little more than $16,000 in fake chips. His username? ‘J’s iPhone.’

The poker interlude isn’t the only memorable moment for the Senator from Arizona today, as he also came down hard on his Republican journalist counterparts on Fox News.

As part of his public appearances where he has been promoting an American military action in Syria, he was interviewed on Fox and Friends Tuesday morning.

Host Brian Kilmeade showed a clip of rebel fighters in Syria shouting out ‘Allahu Akbar’ after a missile hits a government target.

On the offensive: Senator John McCain scolded Fox News host Brian Kilmeade (right) for saying that he wouldn't support the Syrian rebels because they say 'Allahu akbar' after hitting government targets

On the offensive: Senator John McCain scolded Fox News host Brian Kilmeade (right) for saying that he wouldn’t support the Syrian rebels because they say ‘Allahu akbar’ after hitting government targets

‘I have a problem helping those people out if they shout that out after a hit,’ Kilmeade said.

‘Would you have a problem with an American Christian saying "Thank God! Thank God!"? That’s what they’re saying. Come on!

‘Of course they are Muslims but they are moderates. I guarantee you that they are moderates. I know them and I’ve been with them. For someone to say "Allahu Akbar" is about as offensive as someone saying "Thank God."’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2410616/Sen-John-McCain-playing-POKER-crucial-Senate-hearing-military-action-Syria.html#ixzz2e8rEeAKY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

McCain Confronted on Syria at Angry Town Hall Meeting

Woman whose cousin was killed by US-backed rebels pleads with Senator

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 6, 2013

Senator John McCain was confronted on several occasions by Americans opposed to an attack on Syria during an angry town hall meeting that underscored polls which show massive resistance to military intervention.

Fresh off the back of public criticism for being photographed playing poker on his phone during a crucial Senate hearing on Syria, McCain was told in no uncertain terms during a town hall meeting in Arizona that his advocacy for using US military might to topple Bashar Al-Assad was not shared by his constituents.

“We didn’t send you to make war for us. We sent you to stop the war,” one man said as the audience applauded.

“Why are you not listening to the people and staying out of Syria? It’s not our fight,” added another man, complaining that lawmakers were not representing the will of voters.

During the event another man stood next to McCain before revealing a sign which read, “”Don’t Bomb Syria!!!”

The most passionate confrontation undoubtedly involved a woman whose 18-year-old cousin was killed ten days ago in Syria by US-backed rebels.

“They’re not Syrian, they’re coming to Syria from all over the world to fight….we cannot afford to turn Syria into another Iraq or Afghanistan,” she said.

“You can do it by diplomacy, not bombs, Sen. McCain. We cannot afford to shed more Syrian blood,” added the woman.

“I beg you – my family is there, there’s so many good Syrians, the majority of the Syrian people want to save their country and you also need to listen to the majority of the American people who do not want you to go there….enough is enough….we don’t want Al-Qaeda to take over,” she said as the crowd cheered. She went on to highlight the attacks on Christians in Syria, saying she could trace her family back to the bible.

“We refused to be forced to leave and flee and be considered collateral damage,” the woman concluded.

McCain responded by asserting he knew the rebels in Syria and that they were moderates. However, the rebels McCain met with in Syria earlier this year were “a known affiliate of the rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims,” according to reports.

The deputy leader of the so-called “moderate” FSA also recently made it clear that, “the mujahideen rebels’ supreme council will disband unless the West drops its demands to steer clear of violent jihadists,” reported National Review.

Perhaps the most well known if not the most brutal atrocity committed by US-backed rebels, where an opposition militant is seen cutting out and eating the heart of a Syrian soldier, was committed by FSA commander Abu Sakkar, hardly the action of a “moderate”.

Public fury with McCain’s advocacy of an attack on Syria is unsurprising given polls which show a clear majority of Americans oppose military intervention. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 9 per cent thought the US should intervene in Syria’s civil war, with 60 per cent opposed.

Watch the full video of a woman whose cousin was killed by US-backed rebels in Syria confronting McCain below.

Now watch Marine Infantry Combat Veteran Bryan Bates outline his opposition to an attack on Syria before walking out on McCain.

John McCain ‘s Completely INSANE

U.S. Prepares for War in the Middle East

Claims Iran and Hezbollah coordinating attacks

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 6, 2013

USS Nimitz. Photo: fas.org

USS Nimitz. Photo: fas.org

The United States is prepared to do battle with Iran and Hezbollah when it takes out Syria in response to its alleged weapons of mass destruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Late Thursday, the newspaper reported the U.S. government “intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria,” one of “an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.”

The intercepted message purportedly came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force, and was delivered to Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. Officials. “In it, Mr. Soleimani said Shiite groups must be prepared to respond with force after a U.S. strike on Syria. Iranian officials didn’t respond to requests for comment,” the Journal reports.

The U.S. predicts Iran will mobilize its fleet of fast boats in the Persian Gulf where U.S. warships are stationed.

In early 2012, the U.S. military claimed it was harassed by Iranian boats. At the time, Israeli intelligence officer Avi Perry predicted a “surprise” Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack on an American warship in the Persian Gulf as a pretext for the U.S. to launch an all-out attack on Iran. No such attack occurred.

Amid escalating tension, in July, 2012, a security team aboard the oil supply ship U.S.N.S. Rappahannockfired on a boat in the Persian Gulf, killing one and injuring three others.

In addition to predicting attacks in the Persian Gulf, the newspaper reported the government’s belief Hezbollah will attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in response to a Syrian attack.

The Pentagon has deployed a number of warships in the region, a move that has heightened fears that an attack on Syria will rapidly escalate into a larger war.

Deployments include a strike group attached to the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and three destroyers positioned in the Red Sea. An amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, is currently stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The U.S. military has also activated Marines and “other assets” to be used during the strike, ostensibly to evacuate embassies and diplomatic compounds in the region. The State Department made preparations last week for the possibility of retaliation against U.S. embassies and other interests in the Middle East and North Africa, the Journal reports.

In addition, the State Department issued an alert on Thursday warning against nonessential travel to Iraq and cited terrorist activity “at levels unseen since 2008.”

 

US Strike on Syria Will Make Obama ‘War President’ – Russian Lawmaker

Topic: Possible Intervention in Syria

US President Barack Obama pictured with former US President George W. Bush

US President Barack Obama pictured with former US President George W. Bush

© AFP 2013/ Jewel Samad

12:04 06/09/2013

MOSCOW, September 6 (RIA Novosti) – Launching an attack on Syria would make US President, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Barack Obama “a war president” a senior Russian lawmaker wrote on Twitter Friday.

“They said Obama does not want to go to war in Syria. This myth was demolished by Obama himself. He has eventually turned into a “war president,” a second [George W.] Bush,” said Alexei Pushkov, who heads the international affairs committee in the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, and who has earned himself a reputation as a prolific Tweeter.

Obama recently asked the US Congress to support a limited military intervention in Syria because of the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons, which the US claims killed over a thousand civilians in one attack last month.

The Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee approved a motion backing a military strike Wednesday, with a final vote expected next week after Congress reconvenes Monday.

In another comment on Twitter last week, Pushkov said President Obama should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize if the United States carries out a military strike on Syria.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” according to a statement on the prize’s website.

Church Leaders: Syrian Christians Need Help, Not Military Intervention

September 6, 2013 – 1:39 AM


By Patrick Goodenough

Subscribe to Patrick Goodenough RSS

syrian church

A destroyed church in the Syrian city of Homs (Photo: Barnabas Fund)

(CNSNews.com) – Ahead of a day of prayer and fasting for Syria on Saturday, called for by Pope Francis, a Christian charity working in the country said church leaders there are appealing for help, not military intervention.

“As U.S. President Barack Obama rallies support for a military strike on Syria, Christian leaders from the country have called on Western nations to focus their efforts instead on providing aid to help meet the ‘dire need’ of the suffering people,” said Barnabas Fund.

In a letter Thursday to G20 leaders meeting in Russia, Pope Francis urged them to “lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution” in Syria.

“Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community,” he wrote.

“Moreover, all governments have the moral duty to do everything possible to ensure humanitarian assistance to those suffering because of the conflict, both within and beyond the country’s borders.”

Asked for the White House response to the pope’s appeal, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters in St. Petersburg he had not seen the letter, but “clearly, we always welcome the views of the Catholic Church, which has a longstanding commitment to the promotion of peace.”

The pope has called for “a special day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” on Saturday, inviting “men and women of goodwill” of whatever faith to join wherever and however they may, and for Catholics in Rome to take part in an evening prayer vigil in St. Peter’s Square.

Also Thursday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sent letters to every member of Congress, urging them not to support military action in Syria.

The letter from USCCB president Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and the chairman of its committee on international justice and peace, Bishop Richard Pates of Des Moines, said Pope Francis and bishops in the Middle East “have made it clear that a military attack will be counterproductive, will exacerbate an already deadly situation, and will have unintended negative consequences.”

“Their concerns strongly resonate in American public opinion that questions the wisdom of intervention and in the lack of international consensus.”

Syria church mosaic

A religious mosiac, its protective glass broken, is seen in a church damaged by mortar fire in a Christian village in Idlib province, captured by rebels in January 2013. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

‘What guarantees can you give Christians?’

Barnabas Fund, an international organization supporting Christians in Muslim-majority countries, quoted one of its partners in Syria, Aleppo Baptist leader Jany Haddad, as saying, “We urge Western authorities to take the measures necessary to protect our Christian civilians in the country. We ask them to shift their thoughts towards increasing financial support to our Christian societies and communities because of their dire need at this time.”

“On behalf of Syrian Christians and other minority communities, we entreat Western governments to alleviate the suffering of our people by providing urgent humanitarian aid, as our communities are in dire need,” said Rosangela Jarjour, the Homs-based general-secretary of the Fellowship of Middle East Evangelical Churches.

“The majority have been displaced from their homes with hardly anything to subsist on; most are jobless, homeless, and in danger of abduction and assaults by radical militants,” she said.

Barnabas Fund international director Patrick Sookhdeo said “the plight of Syria’s Christians has been tragically overlooked by Western governments. I pray that they will heed the cries of these Christian leaders from the country as they consider what action to take.”

Since the Syrian civil war began Barnabas Fund says it has provided practical aid to an estimated 139,000 Syrian Christians, many of whom are internally displaced, “having had to flee their homes as a result of targeted violence against them by Islamist rebels.”

“Christians are being singled out for violent attack, kidnap, torture, sexual assault and murder; their homes have been taken over in violent raids. Christian leaders have been particularly targeted, and numerous church buildings have been deliberately destroyed.”

The organization’s honorary U.S. director, Anglican Bishop Julian Dobbs, has written to Obama, urging him to consider the consequences for Christians as he mulls military action against the Assad regime in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack.

“Military action that results in the demise of President Assad’s forces would almost certainly allow a strengthened al-Qaeda presence in Syria that would result in significant and increased persecution of Syrian Christians,” he wrote.

Citing “the destruction of the Iraqi Christian community” in the aftermath of the U.S.-led war there, Dobbs asked Obama, “What guarantees of security and religious freedom can you and your administration give to the already suffering Christian community in Syria if a military intervention is initiated by the United States?”

Dobbs concluded by noting that Muslim extremists view minority Christians as allies of the West on account of their faith, and that Christians will therefore be “at greater risk than other minorities in the aftermath of a U.S. strike on their country.”

archbishop of canterbury

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (AP Photo, File)

‘Open season on Christians’

The titular leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans (Episcopalians), Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who earlier urged caution as the British government weighed arming Syrian rebels, is also leery about military intervention.

During a recent speech in the House of Lords in London, he said a senior Christian leader in the region had told him that “intervention from abroad will declare open season on the Christian communities.”

“They will surely suffer terribly (as they already are) if action goes ahead,” Welby continued. “And that consequence has to be weighed against the consequences of inaction.”

“If we take action that diminishes the chance of peace and reconciliation, when inevitably a political solution has to be found, whether it’s near term or in the long term future, then we will have contributed to more killing and this war will be deeply unjust,” he said.

Barnabas Fund director Sookhdeo, an expert on radical Islam who is also director of the non-profit Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said in a new analysis on the Syrian civil war that because of the positions being taken by various parties “the Christians find themselves increasingly being supported by China and Russia whereas their historic supporters in terms of religious liberty and human rights are turning out to be the ones who are supporting the radical Islamists and denying their fundamental freedoms.”

“The West, in supporting the rebels backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, may well find that they are closely supporting radical Islamists allied to al-Qaeda, which could not only prove to be the death knell of a moderate, tolerant, multi-religious Syria in the aftermath of Assad but also result in a radical Islamist government riven with sectarianism and extremism that may ultimately destroy the Church,” he argued.

“So as Barack Obama this week tries to rally support for his plans to conduct a military strike on Syria, he and other Western leaders need to consider the wider background to this conflict. I am greatly concerned that any military intervention will only further escalate hostilities in an already highly charged environment.”

– See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/church-leaders-syrian-christians-need-help-not-military-intervention#sthash.M0xZeq6h.dpuf

 

Mixed Messages: White House Rules Out Strike Without Congress Vote, Obama Does Not

Not even Obama’s aides know what he’s planning
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Sept 6, 2013

The White House and the President have obviously not managed to get their story straight with each other on Syria, as aides today ruled out a military strike without Congressional approval, while Obama himself refused to do the same.

White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told reporters on Friday that if Congress rejects President Obama’s request to authorize a military strike against Syria, it is “neither his desire nor his intention” to carry out the attack regardless.

However, at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Obama was less clear when asked whether he would take military action without Congressional approval.

“I put this before Congress for a reason,” Obama told reporters. “I believe action is more effective and stronger if we are united. I’m not engaging in parlor games with respect to how Congress responds to their constituents’ concerns.”

Obama added that he would have already taken action without consulting Congress had there been a direct threat to the United States or its allies.

Secretary of State John Kerry has clearly suggested that the President WILL go ahead with military action regardless of the outcome of the Congressional vote, a move that could prompt a constitutional crisis.

The comments come at the same time as reports indicating that the chances of the House approving for military action in Syria are so bad that congressional aides are doubting whether a vote will even take place.

“I just don’t believe that if defeat is certain, the House leadership will want to see a president utterly humiliated on the House floor in a public vote,” one top aide to the Republican leadership told National Review. “The weakness it would demonstrate wouldn’t be good for the country.” the aide said.

The Senate narrowly passed a modified version of Obama’s resolution on Wednesday, and the full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday. Both chambers must approve the measure for it to pass.

Meanwhile Obama has announced that he will make a plea to the American people for military action in a White House address on Tuesday.

 

Obama: Congress Is Supposed to Represent Me, Not the American People

Lawmakers know better than 99% of the voters, Obama implied.

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
September 6, 2013

In a speech today at the G20 Summit in Russia, President Barack Obama stated that members of Congress should listen to their voters but ultimately should act on their own, against their constituency, in order to make a decision that is “right for America.”

syria before_thumb[1]

Video Blocked by Youtube   WHY???

syria after_thumb[2]

Segment begins at the 27:45 minute mark.

Obama made this revealing statement after a journalist asked, “One of your closest allies in the House said yesterday, ‘When you’ve got 97 percent of your constituents saying no, it’s kind of hard to say yes.’ Why should members of Congress go against the will of their constituents and support your decision on this?”

“Now, with respect to Congress and how they should respond to constituency concerns, you know, I do consider it part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the American people exactly why I think this is the right thing to do,” Obama said. “It’s conceivable that at the end of the day, I don’t persuade a majority of the American people that it’s the right thing to do and then each member of Congress is gonna have to decide, if I think it’s the right thing to do for America’s national security and the world’s national security, then how do I vote?”

“And you know what? That’s — that’s what you’re supposed to do as a member of Congress. Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you’ve also got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America.”

In short, Obama will try to influence Americans into supporting his war, but failing that, Congress is supposed to just ignore the vast majority of voters against the war and approve military action in Syria.

As Obama implied, members of Congress should represent themselves rather than the voters who placed them in office, especially when Obama’s aims run contrary to the demands of the American people.

This is right in line with a senior State Department official’s earlier statement that “the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.”

As we reported yesterday, Congress members across the nation are being overwhelmed by unprecedented opposition towards a war in Syria.

“I’m told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Az.) told the National Review that out of the 500 voters who called his office recently, 498 of them adamantly wanted to stay out of Syria.

Anti-war sentiments are prevailing in both major parties.

“I can tell you 99 percent of the calls coming to my office are against it,” Maryland Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings said to MSNBC.

It is interesting to note that in 2012, 76% of his district voted for Obama.

Other representatives have tweeted similar statements:

As we have exhaustively documented in the past, American troops may find themselves fighting alongside al-Qaeda if they are deployed to Syria.

“We should be focused on defending the United States of America,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said recently. “That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

 

Syria: Next Chapter of U.S. Shadow War in Middle East

For 12 years strong, US running “counterinsurgency air force” for allies

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
September 6, 2013

While the world’s focus is centered on the G-20 Summit and Obama attempting to make his case to justify a war with Syria, the US military is still covertly fighting a 12-year old war in the Middle East and now parts of Africa.

According to the BBC, an estimated six more militants were killed overnight in Pakistan after two missiles were fired at a house in North Waziristan, near Afghanistan. While the strike managed to take out a senior commander of the Taliban-linked Haqqani militant network, reports also confirm an undisclosed number of civilian casualties.

Photo: Official US Navy Page via Flickr.

Photo: Official US Navy Page via Flickr.

The strike is the second this week in Pakistan, adding to the list of 322 drone strikes authorized by Obama.Statistics from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveal an estimated 2,513-3,595 were killed, including 407-926 civilians and 168-200 children from 2004-13.

Since the war began, following the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US has been utilizing the covert drone program in eight different countries.

These countries include:

• Afghanistan
• Algeria
• Iraq
• Iran
• Libya
• Somalia
• Pakistan
• Yemen

Syria may be added to the list next.

From 2002-13, nearly 60 drone strikes have been confirmed, killing an estimated 268-393 people, including 21-58 civilians and five children. Remember, these are the number of confirmed strikes and deaths, the death toll is projected to be much higher.

In Somalia, approximately ten drone strikes have been confirmed, killing an estimated 30 people. Covert operations have killed an estimated 7-14 people, including 7-42 civilians and 1-3 children.

Reviewing these numbers illustrates the US’s attitude towards murder and assassination. It highlights the absolute hypocrisy of the US wanting to initiate another war in another country on the basis of avenging the deaths of a few hundred Syrians killed via a chemical weapons attack.

Reports have continually pointed towards the Syrian rebels as the culprits for the chemical weapons attack in Syria on Aug. 21, but even if Assad had done this to his own people, how can the US justify punishing a leader who murders civilians when the US is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Middle Eastern men, women and children?

The US covert drone program has managed to stay incredibly secretive, and only recently has the Obama administration come under criticism for the program, with the public and US officials calling more transparency and oversight.

Experts argue the reason the program has been kept secret is because it would be in violation of an executive order signed in 1976 by President Gerald R. Ford which banned “American intelligence forces from engaging in assassination,” reported the New Yorker.

Critics say the program has progressed beyond it’s original intention. The use of the unmanned drone program was initially intended to target an individual based on a specific set of intelligence based on his or her identity, and who posed an imminent threat to the US. Now suspects are targeted based on suspicious behavior or a series of actions that might be suspicious. Sometimes the identify of that individual is unknown.

While the drone program came to prominence under Bush, Obama has drastically expanded it. A US military attack on Syria would earn Obama the title of “war president,” according to a senior Russian lawmaker. It would make him a “second George W. Bush,” said a member of the Russian Parliament.

Obama’s drone program shows no evidence of slowing down, with strikes expanding into parts of Africa to reportedly target the al-Qaeda affiliated group al Shabaab. According to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, US operations in Somalia remain “largely a mystery” with only two confirmed strikes in 2012.

“In Yemen and Somalia, there is debate about whether the militants targeted by the U.S. are in fact plotting against the U.S. or instead fighting against their own country,” reported ProPublica. Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the US is running “a counterinsurgency air force” for allied countries.

The US government is responsible for a massive death toll post 9/11, and instead of decelerating the wars, the Obama administrations intends to exacerbate more money and more military aid in an attempt to send Syrian leader al-Assad a message. An act that could push the planet into WW3.

Untitled


Exclusive: High Level Source Confirms Secret US Nuclear Warhead Transfer

fuckyou

Anthony Gucciardi & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
September 3, 2013

A high level source inside the military has now confirmed to us that Dyess Air Force base is actively moving nuclear warheads to the East Coast of the United States in a secret transfer that has no paper trail.

According to the high level military source, who has a strong record of continually being proven correct in deep military activity, the Dyess Air Force Commander authorized unknown parties to transfer the nuclear warheads to an unknown location that has been reported to be South Carolina, where the warheads will then be picked up and potentially utilized.

This is of particular interest not only due to the fact that the Syrian situation has escalated to the point of a very realistic hot war scenario, but due to the fact that Dyess has repeatedly denied the existence of nuclear warheads inside the base.

The brief report from the top level military source, which was written in a rush to get the information out, reads:

“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”

The fact that this transfer was not signed for and there were no papers is key. It shows how the military is now secretly operating with the transfer of nuclear weapons, and what’s more, we know that DERMO (a military base in Florida) is a hotbed of special operations. Why is DERMO operating the nuclear warheads out of Dyess Air Force base with no paper trail? This shows that this is a highly secretive, black ops style move here that the military does not want on record.

The fact is that they don’t move all of these assets unless they plan on using them. Nuclear warheads are not simply moved to the East Coast for no reason, and the bottom line is that these missiles are likely being used for something even much greater than Syria.

dyess-nuke-site

Top Level Military Officer ‘Extremely Alarmed’

This leak inside the military industrial complex comes after prior sources have also revealed to us that B-1′s and B-2 bombers were ordered to head out of their respective bases (B-1B’s leaving Dyess specifically) across the nation and they haven’t come back. All of this is happening amid the growing Syrian crisis that has developed amid the ignition of a WW3-level wrestling match between the United States and Russia.  Now, based on the transfer to South Carolina that is not on record and was not signed for, we may be looking at a pattern that reveals an extremely hot war scenario.

And here’s what’s essential to understand: There’s no question that the Syrian issue is huge, and it’s very possible that the US military is now under orders by Obama to prepare a strike, but the reality is that the much greater issue here is what’s going on with the US and Russia. What we’re seeing here is a proxy war turned hot with Syria, and we’ve been covering this for months now. Even the mainstream media has reported in the past how the evolution of war in Syria has turned into a hot proxy war against Russia via the Syrian rebels and Assad’s troops.

b1bomber

We now even have the Russian media openly discussing the hot war by the United States against Russia and how this will essentially lead to World War 3.  But the fact of the matter is that we’re already progressively moving towards World War 3 . Obama and United States officials are already talking about boots on the ground in Syria and taking down the Russian-backed Assad regime. They are already moving forward following the blatantly staged chemical attacks that were absolutely carried out by the Obama-funded Syrian rebels in order to initiate a war scenario.

Why do you think Obama has been aiding in the training, funding, and supplying of the bloodthirsty Syrian rebels since 2011 through secret orders admitted by Reuters? The entire angle here is not to help the civilians of Syria, who the Obama-backed rebels already are beheading and murdering to cheering crowds. No, this has always been a buildup to a World War 3 scenario between Russia and the United States. And now, with the absolute insanity of Obama and the military industrial complex pushing these wars, it’s here.

Nuclear weapons held in bunker, similar to the reports of the high level military source.

Nuclear weapons held in bunker, similar to the reports of the high level military source.

World War 3 Is Starting

I have spoken to my connections in the Russian media and they are all confirming that World War 3 is the hottest topic right now amid the populace, and the fact of the matter is that all of the top level military officials over there are looking at this Syrian incident as the catalyst — as the spark. There’s a reason that Russia has begun amassing 160,000 troops and heavy military equipment following an Israeli strike on Russian missiles in Syria. There’s a reason that the troops were called along with naval ships and bombers to attain ‘immediate combat readiness’ along the border. We reported on this months ago while the media was too busy focusing on the Trayvon Martin case to talk about the ignition of World War 3.

What we’re looking at right now is the beginning of World War 3 unless we manage to stop it. The elite are crazy enough and drunk enough with power to launch anything if it means advancing their vast lust for power and control. Thankfully, we now have a public that is much more awake to what’s going on and able to put a speed bump in the overall war plan as admitted by Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last week, but it will take a lot of awakening to stop Obama from launching these attacks that have been in the works for years.

We encourage you to continue checking out Infowars and Storyleak for more updates on this and the latest news and information we find out on this developing situation.

hiroshima-bomb-victim

A Hiroshima victim of the nuclear strike — what everyone has to look forward to in the event of a nuclear war that is on the horizon if we don’t turn things around.

************************

PEOPLE of the World we MUST STOP these Psychotic Murdering Maniac PUPPETs from doing this or its HORRIBLE DEATH TO US ALL and the DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANET… Except of course the Psychotic Murdering Maniacs themselves as they will be well hidden away in there cowardly bunkers they’ve been building for decades for probably just this kind of planned NUCLEAR FUCK Event!!!

19543.the_nuclear_endgame

Is this our Future

281653_104543622977183_100002646361405_25124_6744527_n

Or Our Children’s

25083802

Because Its No Future Its the END

339291829_59679da6f8

If WWIII happens and Nukes are used,The Bombs used wont be bombs like Hiroshima They will be Thermonuclear or far worse  Who really know what worse kind of death these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs have come up with that classified

W87Schematic480

We Cant Let This Happen

Are we People or Sheeople being led to the slaughter

We can all see the cliff ahead, are we just going to let these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs just walk us of that cliff

Its time to take back the Planet from these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs

ONCE AND FOR ALL

HOW? HOW YOU SAY?

You Really Know How deep down inside Just don’t be afraid any more

JUST SHOUT AND MEAN IT NO MORE WAR

the more they pull on

THE LOUDER YOU SHOUT NO MORE WAR

Come out of your houses and come out of your workplace fill the streets with NO MORE WAR as loud as you can

Screw your job for now Its time for a firm NO MORE WAR from all global CITIZENS to these Psychotic Murdering Maniacs NO MORE WAR

Do this by Writing, Emailing, Phoning,Tweeting, Posting or visiting your local Psychotic Murdering Maniac Puppets representative and make it clear to them NO MORE WAR

TO ALL AMERICANS

You are now regarded as the NAZI bad guys of the planet The EVIL if you will because of the NEOCONAZI Psychotic Murdering Maniacs criminal takeover of your government.YOU must really come out and say NO MORE WAR

NO MORE WAR

OR WE WILL SURELY ALL BE KILLED

by these

Psychotic Murdering Maniacs and there

ELITE MASTERS

And We All Know Who They Are…


Bombshell: Syria’s ‘chemical weapons’ turn out to be sodium fluoride used in the U.S. water supply and sold at Wal-Mart

Tuesday, September 03, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)
http://www.naturalnews.com/041883_Syria_chemical_weapons_sodium_fluoride.html#ixzz2dqWgyo3w

(NaturalNews) Natural News can now reveal that the Syria chemical weapons narrative being pushed by the White House is an outlandish hoax.
To understand why, you have to start with the story published in The Independent entitled Revealed: Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria.
Sounds scary, right? As The Independent reports:
The Government was accused of "breathtaking laxity" in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.
What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via "arms control" regulations? You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are:
sodium fluoride
potassium fluoride
You can see this yourself in the screen capture of The Independent breaking news story. Note the headline and the subhead. The headline describes "nerve gas chemicals" and the subhead explains them as "sodium fluoride" and "potassium fluoride."

click here to watch my video explaining all this at TV.naturalnews.com.

U.S. water fluoridation chemical is Syria’s "chemical weapon"

If these chemical names sound familiar, that’s because sodium fluoride is the same toxic chemical that’s routinely dumped into municipal water supplies all across the USA under the guise of "water fluoridation."
In fact, the forced feeding of sodium fluoride to the U.S. population is called a "public health" victory by the CDC, FDA and dentists everywhere. Yet this same chemical, when sold to Syria, is openly and repeatedly referred to as a "chemical weapon." This is true across the BBC, the Guardian, Daily Record and Sunday Mail, France24.com and literally thousands of other news websites.
According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, any government "regime" that uses chemical weapons against its own people should be bombed / invaded / overthrown by a coalition of other United Nations members. By his own definition, then, the United States of America should now be invaded by the UN because the government uses a deadly chemical weapon — sodium fluoride — on its own people.
By implication, then, John Kerry is now calling for the UN to bomb the USA. As the international media now confirms, sodium fluoride is a chemical weapon, and this chemical weapon is used against the American people every single day in the water supply, a favorite attack vector for terrorists.

"Evidence" of chemical weapons nothing more than hair samples of people who drank sodium fluoride

As you might have guessed, Secretary of State John Kerry is running around "pulling a George Bush" by claiming Syria has used weapons of mass destruction on its own population. Here’s a sample of his claims:
"In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin." Kerry said this on NBC’s Meet The Press.
But what, exactly, is he saying? That hair samples have tested positive for "signatures" of sarin, not sarin itself. What is a "signature" of sarin? The fluorine element, which is of course the basis for sodium fluoride.
In other words, this "evidence" of chemical weapons in Syria may be nothing more than a collection of hair samples taken from people who drank fluoride. As this study shows on SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, hair analysis is a commonly-used practice for assessing exposure to fluoride. It concludes, "hair may be regarded as biomaterial of high informative potential in evaluating prolonged exposure to fluorides…"
Typically, this analysis is conducted with ICP-MS instrumentation, using a plasma torch that disintegrates all organic molecules, leaving only the resulting elements (fluorine). Tests done on Syrian citizens using ICP-MS would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin exposure in terms of the detection of elemental fluorine.
Read that again, because it’s crucial to understanding the hoax being perpetrated by the White House: Tests on hair or other tissues, if done using ICP-MS (the most common elemental analysis technology used today), would not be able to distinguish between sodium fluoride and sarin.
Sarin has the chemical formula:
[(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F
You will notice that the only elements in this formula are:
Fluorine
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Phosphorous
Out of those five elements, four of them (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous) occur naturally in the human body in large quantities. Fluorine is the only element that strongly stands out against the rest in terms of elemental analysis. And fluorine is the same element that forms the basis of sodium fluoride. Sarin can, of course, also be detected as a complete molecule using liquid chromatography systems (HPLC), but this is highly unlikely to have taken place given the inherent instability of the molecule, which breaks apart upon exposure to simple moisture in the air or in the body.
Thus, ICP-MS testing could be used to intentionally "blur" the evidence, making sodium fluoride appear to be "signatures" of sarin, precisely as Kerry is now claiming in the media. As the whole point of all this is to fabricate evidence to justify a political war in the first place, there isn’t any real scientific scrutiny being applied to all this. Obama, Kerry and others are spouting whatever they think the people will swallow, and since most of the U.S. public is scientifically illiterate, it turns out they will swallow some real whoppers.

Same sodium fluoride chemical added to water for infants

Sodium fluoride, by the way, is also added to drinking water for babies and infants. It’s a key ingredient, actually, in a product called Nursery Water that’s "enriched" with extra sodium fluoride, the same chemical now being called a "chemical weapon" by the international media. You can see this for yourself at www.NurseryWater.com or just check out the photo below:

As you can see, this sodium fluoride infant water — which the White House effectively calls a "chemical weapon" — is sold at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Albertson’s, Safeway, K-Mart, Rite Aid and even Toys "R" Us. Bet you never knew you could buy chemical weapons at Toys "R" Us, did ya?

The Nursery Water label, shown below, lists "sodium fluoride" as a key ingredient:

You’ll also notice that the label includes instructions for using this sodium fluoride baby water:
"…ready to mix with formula and cereal, dilute juice or drink – just open and pour!"
Yep, you read it: the same "chemical weapon" that’s about to start World War III is part of your baby’s formula recipe. When sodium fluoride is in the hands of Syria’s Assad, it’s called a "chemical weapon," but when it’s part of your baby’s diet, it’s called "nutrition." How’s that for Orwellian doublespeak?

Syria’s "chemical weapon" also added to Colgate toothpaste

Just in case adding Syria’s "chemical weapon" to baby water isn’t enough for you, it’s also a key ingredient in Colgate toothpaste.
Yep, according to dentists, chemical weapons also "fight tooth decay," so they should be added to toothpaste. Check out the label on this Colgate toothpaste and see for yourself:

Keep this in mind the next time you carry toothpaste with you when you attempt to travel by air. The TSA can pull you aside and legitimately accuse you of working for the Assad regime as a chemical weapons terrorist while charging you with the federal crime of "transporting chemical weapons."

Mainstream media admits U.S. food companies use chemical weapons against their own customers

Unless the mainstream media retracts all its thousands of stories about sodium fluoride being a "chemical weapon" sold to Syria, it must come to terms with the fact that it is also accusing the U.S. food industry of using chemical weapons on consumers.
Sodium fluoride, after all, is added to countless consumer products, from toothpaste and mouthwash to drinking water. Sodium fluoride does not magically change from a "chemical weapon" in Syria to a "nutritive mineral" by crossing the ocean. Sodium fluoride is sodium fluoride, and it’s dangerous no matter who consumes it.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear a dentist recommending dumping sodium fluoride into the local water supply. You can correctly counter their absurd request by threatening to call Homeland Security to report them as a terrorist for engaging in the indiscriminate deployment of a chemical weapon in the water supply — a favorite target for terrorists worldwide.
By the way, I’m not joking on this: I actually encourage you to call Homeland Security and report your local city council members as terrorists who are mirroring the Assad "regime" in Syria by using sodium fluoride "chemical weapons" on the public. You might even call the United Nations and ask them to intervene in the USA’s use of chemical weapons against its own people… right? Isn’t that what John Kerry is asking the world to do in the case of Syria? Why does the USA have immunity from using chemical weapons on its own people when Syria is threatened with war for using the exact same chemical weapons on its population?

Same "nerve gas chemicals" exported to Syria are imported from China by nearly every U.S. city

By the way, the same sodium fluoride that was exported to Syria as a "chemical weapon" is routinely imported by U.S. cities to dump into the municipal water supply. They call it "water fluoridation" and dentists push it like candy because it actually causes wildly increased tooth decay, mottling and discoloration (all of which adds up to increased repeat business for dentists).
As documented by Natural News, sodium fluoride is touted by China’s exporters as a multi-purpose chemical that functions as a deadly pesticide, absorbs chemicals in the nuclear industry and more. See these two photos for more proof. These were created as marketing materials by China’s fluoride export industry:


From Alibaba.com:
Uses: It’s mainly used as a flux in the aluminum smelting by fused-salt electrolysis; also an opalizer in the manufacture of enamel; an opacifier and auxiliary solvent of glass and enamel; an insecticide of crops; a flux in aluminum alloy casting; and in the production of ferrous alloy and effervescing steel; as well as a wear-resistant filler for resin and rubber-boned abrasive wheels.
As I first said back in 2012, "Fluoride is a chemical weapon!" Now it turns out John Kerry agrees with me, and he’s using fluoride as an excuse to bomb a sovereign nation.
Quick question: If Russia begins bombing the USA, can they use the same excuse that Obama and Kerry are using on Syria? "We had to save the American people from the chemical weapons used by the Obama regime!"
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041883_Syria_chemical_weapons_sodium_fluoride.html#ixzz2dqWa6FSu

 

Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria

Washington’s Blog
September 3, 2013

The White House released a 4-page document setting forth its case for use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

Credit: Pete Souza via Flickr

Credit: Pete Souza via Flickr

But as shown below, the case is extremely weak (government’s claim in quotes, followed by rebuttal evidence).

“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.“

But McClatchy notes:

Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the U.S. intelligence he referenced explained how the U.S. reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.”

Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.

He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and “tens” of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the U.S. tally.

“President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ – creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the U.S. made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the U.N. on Iraq in 2003.”

An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.

Next, the government says:

“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.”

Reports on the ground are contradictory, with some claiming that the rebels used the chemical weapons. See this and this.  Indeed, government officials have admitted that they’re not sure who used chemical weapons.

More importantly the U.S. government claimed it had unimpeachable sources regarding Iraq’s WMDs … and that turned out to be wholly fabricated.

“We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiologicalsamples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin.”

Chemical weapons experts are still skeptical.  The chain of custody is suspect, given that the U.S. hasn’t revealed where the samples came from, and who delivered them to the U.S.  McClatchy reports:

Among chemical weapons experts and other analysts who’ve closely studied the Syrian battlefield, the main reservation about the U.S. claims is that there’s no understanding of the methodology behind the intelligence-gathering. They say that the evidence presented points to the use of some type of chemical agent, but say that there are still questions as to how the evidence was collected, the integrity of the chain of custody of such samples, and which laboratories were involved.

Eliot Higgins, a British chronicler of the Syrian civil war who writes the Brown Moses blog, a widely cited repository of information on the weapons observed on the Syrian battlefield, wrote a detailed post Monday listing photographs and videos that would seem to support U.S. claims that the Assad regime has possession of munitions that could be used to deliver chemical weapons. But he wouldn’t make the leap.

On the blog, Higgins asked: “How do we know these are chemical weapons? That’s the thing, we don’t. As I’ve said all along, these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It’s ultimately up to the U.N. to confirm if chemical weapons were used.”

Moreover, Dan Kaszeta – a former Chemical Officer in the United States Army, and one of the foremost experts in chemical and biological weapons – said in a recent interview that there can be false positives for Sarin, especially, when tests are done in the field (pesticides or other chemical agents can trigger a false positive for sarin.)

The bottom lines is that – even though the U.S. has done everything it can to derail a UN weapons inspection – we have to wait to see what the UN tests reveal.

“We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.”

The rebels absolutely had had access to chemical weapons. While the American government claims that the opposition has not used chemical weapons, many other sources – including the United Nations, Haaretz, and Turkish state newspaper Zaman – disagree.

“The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations.”

The types of munitions which were apparently used to deliver the chemical weapon attack are an odd,do-it-yourself type of rocket.   The rebels could have made these.

“We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.”

This is not evidence. This is a conclusory opinion without any support.   (To give an analogy, this would be like claiming Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction right before the Iraq war started because he didn’t like short people … without refuting the actual fact that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs.)

“We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin.”

American intelligence sources have repeatedly been caught lying.  During the run-up to the Iraq war, the government entirely bypassed the normal intelligence-vetting process, so that bogus claims could be trumpeted without the normal checks and balances from conscientious intelligence analysts.

“On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks.”

This is an oddly-worded – and carefully crafted – statement.  Assad has repeatedly warned that the rebels might steal chemical weapons and use them on civilians. The utilization of gas masks could have been a preventative measure because the Syrian government had received word that the rebels might carry out a chemical attack. More information is necessary.

“Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.”

The area in which attacks occurred was heavily contested by the both government and the rebels, and both sides were in and out of the area. 90 minutes before the first attack is an eternity when fighting a war on a heavily-contested battlefield … and could have been plenty of time for rebels to slip in and fire off chemical weapons.

As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting notes:

It’s unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?

In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development–the point at which, as Kerry put it, “all hell broke loose in the social media”? Unless there’s some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it’s very unclear why we should think there’s any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.

The government next turns to social media:

“Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.”

No one contests that some kind of chemical agent was used.  The question is exactly what type of chemical it was and – more importantly – who used it.

Moreover, the rebels were making propaganda videos for years … and they’ve gotten more sophisticated recently.   More information is needed.

“We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.”

Another conclusory opinion without evidence. More importantly, it is a red herring.  No one is saying that the tragic and horrific deaths were faked.

The question is when and where they occurred, and who caused them. For example, one of the world’s leading experts on chemical weapons points out that it is difficult to know where the videos were taken:

Zanders, the former EU chemical weapons expert, went even further, arguing thatoutsiders cannot conclude with confidence the extent or geographic location of the chemical weapons attack widely being blamed on the Assad regime.

He singled out the images of victims convulsing in agony that have circulated widely on the Web, including on YouTube.

“You do not know where they were taken,” he said. “You do not know when they were taken or even by whom they were taken. Or, whether they [are from] the same incident or from different incidents.”

Zanders added: “It doesn’t tell me who would be responsible for it. It doesn’t tell me where the films were taken. It just tells me that something has happened, somewhere, at some point.”

The government then expands on allegedly intercepted intelligence:

“We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.”

The Washington Post points out that alleged intelligence intercepts are “the core of the Obama administration’s evidentiary case….”    America’s war intelligence has been spotty.  For example:

  • It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).

And the U.S. and Israel have admitted that they have carried out false flag deceptions (as have Muslim countries such as Indonesia; but to our knowledge, Syria has never been busted in a false flag.)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting writes:

Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps “mindful of the Iraq experience,” Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

David Swanson notes that American officials mischaracterized the communications to justify the Iraq war:

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here’s what Bob Woodward said about this in his book “Plan of Attack.”

“[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,’ Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.’ None of this was in the intercept.”

[In addition] Powell … was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

The government then makes a throw-away argument:

“At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.”

This is another red herring. If the Syrian government believed that the rebels had used chemical weapons on civilians, they may have increased artillery fire to flush out the rebels to prevent further chemical attacks. Again, further information is needed.

“To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21.As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.”

This sounds impressive at first glance.  But Congress members who have seen the classified information – such as Tom Harkin – are not impressed.

And see these further details refuting the government’s argument for war.

 

#IDidntJoin: Stunning Photos Of U.S. Service Members Publicly Saying No To War With Syria

Michael Snyder
American Dream
September 3, 2013

What do members of the U.S. military think about the possibility of a war with Syria?  So far, they appear to be overwhelmingly against it just like the rest of the general public.  In fact, a new Twitter hashtag (#IdidntJoin) has been flooded with messages from service members expressing their displeasure with the idea of being forced to fight for al-Qaeda in Syria.  This is consistent with what we have been hearing from other sources as well.  For example, U.S. Representative Justin Amash recently sent out a tweet with the following message: “I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against #Syria.”  Of course there are probably a few members of the military that would love a war with Syria, but they appear to be very much in the minority.  Hopefully the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress are listening.

Posted below are photos taken from Twitter of American service members publicly declaring that they do not want war with Syria.  In these photos they are wearing their uniforms, but they are obscuring their faces because they could potentially get in a lot of trouble for publicly defying the Obama administration.

We should applaud these brave service members for being willing to publicly take a stand like this…

I Didn't Join The Army To Fight For Al Qaeda

—–

I will Not Fight For Al Qaeda In Syria

—–

Obama I Will Not Deploy

—–

I Didn't Join The Marine Corps To Fight For Al Qaeda

—–

Stay Out Of Syria

—–

No War With Syria

—–

I Didn't Join The Navy To Fight For Al Qaeda In A Syrian Civil War

Business Insider asked members of the military to write to them and tell them what they thought about a potential conflict with Syria.  52 members of the military responded, and 50 of them were against war with Syria.  The following is one example…

“I’m a U.S. Air Force vet who spent a solid 6 years shuttling between Afghanistan and Iraq, doing everything from combat airdrops to medevacs to hauling flag-draped coffins,” wrote one servicemember in an email, who also mentioned travel to 38 countries in that time. “What we do not need is another war, and we certainly do not need any further involvement in a civil war where our objective isn’t clear, and our allies aren’t really our allies.”

And it is not just the rank and file that are against war with Syria.  According to the Washington Post, many among the top military brass are expressing “serious reservations” about taking action in Syria…

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

This is not about being “anti-war”.  This is about not wanting to shed American blood in an Islamic civil war where neither side is our friend.

Anyone that believes that the Syrian rebels are the “good guys” is being absolutely delusional.

In fact, even the U.S. State Department has admitted that the al-Nusra Front is a terror organization that is affiliated with al-Qaeda.  According to the State Department, they have been responsible for close to 600 terror attacks since November 2011…

“There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front,” says the current State Department travel warning on Syria. “Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks–ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations—in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted.”

The bolded language in this travel warning–emphasizing that the al Qaeda affiliate fighting in the Syrian opposition has been targeting places such as “shopping areas” was put there by the State Department in the online posting of its warning.

“During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed,” then-State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said at the department’s press briefing last Dec. 11.

In a statement published May 16, the State Department said that Muhammad al-Jawlani, the leader of the al-Nusrah Front, had recently pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa’ida’s leader.”

And even the head of al-Qaeda says that the Syrian rebels are working for his side…

In an audio recording on Thursday, Al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahri announced his support for the beleaguered Syrian rebels.

He framed the Syrian revolution, and the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, as necessary steps towards the defeat of Israel.

“Supporting jihad in Syria to establish a Muslim state is a basic step towards Jerusalem,” he said.

So why would members of the U.S. military want to go put their lives on the line to help al-Qaeda take over Syria?

Service members would have to be insane to want to go into battle allied with al-Qaeda.

Not a single drop of precious American blood should ever be shed for al-Qaeda.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems absolutely determined to make this war happen, and so very soon members of the U.S. military will be forced against their will to fight for the benefit of al-Qaeda in Syria.

 

Al-Qaeda militants kill 24 civilians near Ras al-Ain

 

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in Syria, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in Syria, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

According to media reports, the attack was carried out because the passengers who were from three different villages in Ras al-Ain, supported anti-terrorist Kurdish groups which were formed recently to defend Kurdish population against anti-Syria terrorists.

Bodies of a mother and her 40-days infant were also seen among the dead, which were recognized by their relatives.

Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim warned on Friday that the Kurd minority is facing an ethnic cleansing by al-Qaeda terrorists.

While there is no end in sight to the bloody foreign-fueled conflict in Syria, another front has been formed between the Kurdish militia and extremist militants in Northern Syria.

Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups operating in the country, including the al-Nusra Front, are trying to capture Kurdish territories and make them part of a state they want to create in the region.

Following deadly attacks on Kurdish regions in recent months, groups of Kurdish militia were formed to protect their people.

Anti-Syria armed groups continue to target civilians amid US threats against Syrian army and government which have made militants find it easier to widen their attacks.

Following worldwide criticism, US President Barack Obama delayed an imminent military strike against Syria on August 31, sending the matter to the Congress to get more support.

SHI/SHI

– See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1512664#sthash.jU0AdLTW.dpuf

 

Obama’s Syria Attack Resolution Authorizes Boots on the Ground

Plan for military intervention greases skids for war throughout the region, says Harvard professor

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 3, 2013

The Obama administration’s draft resolution for military intervention which Congress is set to vote on next week is so broad that it would authorize boots on the ground as well as regime change and open ended war throughout the entire region, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003.

In an article for the Lawfare Blog, Goldsmith reveals how the White House’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) would give Obama the power to deploy ground troops in Syria, despite the administration’s claims that it is only seeking to carry out “limited” strikes that have no connection to regime change.

“The phrase “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were “necessary and appropriate,” writes Goldsmith.

Goldsmith points out that although the resolution authorizes the President to use the US military to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by (chemical weapons),” it does not limit the countries or groups against which this mandate applies.

“The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets,” writes Goldsmith, emphasizing that the language does not limit military force to the territory of Syria, merely that it must be connected to WMD use in the Syrian conflict.

The AUMF also contains no time limit for when this mandate expires without further congressional approval, meaning it creates the pretext for an open ended war that would “permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war.”

In response to complaints that the authorization is far too broad and would possibly be rejected by Congress on this basis, the Washington Post reports the the administration may be preparing to, “rewrite the proposed resolution to clarify that any operation would be limited in scope and duration and would not include the use of ground troops.”

Former vice chief of staff of the US Army General Jack Keane told BBC Radio 4 today that Obama’s claim that the planned missile strike on Syria will merely be an act of punishment for the use of chemical weapons and not intended to sway the course of the conflict or damage Assad’s military capacity is not the case.

“What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad’s military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance,” said Keane, adding that the attack plan has “much more substance than we were led to believe”.

Secretary of State John Kerry and another unnamed senior State Department official have both made it clear that the Obama administration will proceed with an attack on Syria whether Congress gives the green light or not.

 

MSM Claims Military Revolt Against Obama a Hoax

Rest of corporate media refuses to cover viral Twitter backlash against attack on Syria

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 3, 2013

Image: Twitter

The mainstream media has responded to the military revolt against Barack Obama’s plan to attack Syria by claiming that the viral #IdidntJoin Twitter trend is a hoax invented by pro-Assad hackers.

Despite numerous images of soldiers and veterans holding up signs expressing their vehement opposition to military intervention in Syria going viral, in addition to a plethora of other tweets that were sent to Congressman Justin Amash expressing the same sentiment, the International Business Times website claims that the photos and tweets are the workof Syrian hackers “impersonating” US military personnel.

The article postulates that the original picture of a Petty Naval Officer declaring his opposition to fighting on the same side of Al-Qaeda is an image of a man “simply dressing up.” The article erroneously implies that the Syrian Electronic Army, which posted the image along with several others during its hack of the official US Marines website, was responsible for creating the hoax.

In reality, the image is completely genuine. It was first sent to radio host Angel Clark who posted it on social networking websites, prompting a wave of other veterans and active duty military personnel to follow suit. Former Marine Corporal Michael Büssing labeled the IBTimes article “disgraceful,” pointing out that it didn’t even correctly identify the Naval Officer’s war medals and ludicrously referred to him as a “Navy marine”.

“I looked into the person’s background, and found that they were indeed located in the United States and a part of the Navy. I thanked them for their service, and told them I would make sure their message was heard. It’s against the law to make a political statement in uniform, so this person is risking their livelihood,” writes Angel Clark, who was responsible for circulating the first #Ididntjoin image.

Despite attracting thousands of posts on Twitter, the rest of the mainstream media in the United States has completely ignored the story, which if it received significant attention would undoubtedly put a huge dent in the administration’s case for military intervention.

Last week’s astounding story by Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, which features admissions by rebels stationed in Ghouta that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons attack, has also been completely blacklisted by the corporate media.

View a selection of images below of both active duty and military veterans showing their support for the #IdidntJoin movement.

 

Angry anti-war protesters besiege John Kerry’s home, banging on doors, windows

Infowars.com
September 3, 2013

On Sunday, anti-war protestors protested the anti-war protestor, and with that, as Shakespeare once said, “the wheel is come full circle.”

In the aftermath of Secretary of State John Kerry making a forceful case on Friday for U.S. military intervention in Syria, protesters assembled outside his townhouse on Beacon Hill.

Yes, the Vietnam veteran who became a leading anti-war activist after serving is now advocating for war.

According to Twitter users, as Twitchy reported, protesters pounded on Kerry’s front door and windows, but he wasn’t home. Of course, past precedent tells us if there is a crisis at hand, Kerry’s likely to be found aboard his 76-foot yacht, the “Isabel.”

Some images from Sunday’s protest, courtesy of Twitchy:

BTBI7hMCcAA_Hnw1

 

BTBK8XXIMAAOLxW1

BTBRc0UIgAALcmJ1

BTHpLlWCEAAgW6s1

Remember that John Kerry is a Skull&Bonesmen of the Brotherhood of Death Cult He could give two shits about the people who died in the Syrian gas attack Its all a big ACT and He is the one who probably ordered the attack as well as head of the State Department it would come under his orders

WAKE UP PEOPLE

to these criminal scumballs who have hijacked the US government

 

ITS THE SAME OL STORY SAME OL SONG AND DANCE

Tool of Betrayal: John Kerry’s Dinner with Bashar

Duplicity designed to get foreign regimes to lower their guard

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 3, 2013

On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry compared Bashar al-Assad to Adolph Hitler.

Kerry said the Syrian leader “now joins a list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who’ve used these weapons in a time of war,” a reference to the as of yet unproven accusation that the government of Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. Despite a lack of evidence, Kerry insists “the case gets stronger by the day” for a military attack aimed at al-Assad and his regime.

John Kerry dines with Bashar al-Assad.

John Kerry dines with Bashar al-Assad.

Kerry twisted historical fact to fit the Obama administration’s pre-war rhetoric. Hitler and the Nazi Army didn’t use chemical weapons in battle during the Second World War. In fact, Hitler was a victim of a chemical weapon attack. He was gassed at the Ypres Salient in 1918 during the First World War. Hitler was temporarily blinded by a British mustard gas shell. Winston Churchill and the British were great admirers of chemical weapons. “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,” Churchill wrote in 1919 as then colonial secretary. “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes” in British occupied Iraq.

It is true Saddam Hussein used chemicals weapons. The Reagan administration and the U.S. Department Commerce made sure Iraq received all the biological and chemical weapons it required. Phillips Petroleum, Unilever, Alcolac, Allied Signal, the American Type Culture Collection, and Teledyne sold the materials with the blessing of the United States government. I wrote about this in late 2002 as the Bush administration ran its Iraq weapons of mass destruction scam as a pretext to invade the country, an endeavor that eventually killed more than a million Iraqis (piled atop more than a million previously killed under sanctions) and that ultimately resulted in the execution of the CIA dupe Saddam Hussein.

Now we learn that the CIA helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran with chemical weapons in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by mustard gas and nerve agents including sarin and 100,000 were wounded.

John Kerry apparently prefers to dine with characters he now disingenuously compares to Saddam and Hitler. In 2009, as a member of a peace delegation sent to Syria, then Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz, dined with the Assads at the Naranj restaurant in Damascus.

Following the visit, the AFP reported:

“President Barack Obama’s administration considers Syria a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest… in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”

Video capture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Video capture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

The Kerry meeting is reminiscent of Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in December of 1983. Rumsfeld was dispatched to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president. Rumsfeld declared the Reagan administration’s “willingness to do more” regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but “made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” A duplicitous remark, at best, considering the CIA’s behavior mentioned above.

Rumsfeld would later, as Secretary of Defense, work with George W. Bush to invade Iraq and make sure Saddam Hussein went to the gallows.

Now the globalists are running the same trick in Syria. Over the course of several years, Syria – like Iraq before it – has gone from “a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process” to a rogue nation ruled by a Hitler-like character who mercilessly gasses his own people.

This is hardly unusual – as Saddam Hussein’s fate revealed, the U.S. government routinely turns former friends into Hitleresque enemies for the sake of geopolitical expediency. Kerry’s dinner with Bashar is merely another bizarre sideshow in an ongoing drama that will result in organized mass murder and the untold suffering of millions of innocents – like a few million Libyans last year – after Obama finally unleashes the dogs of war and the hounds “famine, sword and fire” in Syria.

The photos below demonstrate more government duplicity:

Obama meets Muammar Gaddafi a couple years before he had the Libyan leader murdered Mafia style.

Obama meets Muammar Gaddafi a couple years before he had the Libyan leader murdered Mafia style.

Former British Prime Minister Blair was flown to Libya twice at Gaddafi's expense before the Libyan leader was murdered.

Former British Prime Minister Blair was flown to Libya twice at Gaddafi’s expense before the Libyan leader was murdered.

Gaddafi funded French president Sarkozy's campaign before France joined effort to invade Libya and kill Sarkozy's benefactor.

Gaddafi funded French president Sarkozy’s campaign before France joined effort to invade Libya and kill Sarkozy’s benefactor.

President Ronald Reagan met with the Taliban in 1983. He compared them to America's founding fathers.

President Ronald Reagan met with the Taliban in 1983. He compared them to America’s founding fathers.

Senator John McCain meets with the CIA's Syrian terrorists.

Senator John McCain meets with the CIA’s Syrian terrorists.

President Nixon meets the world's most notorious mass murderer, China's Chairman Mao.

President Nixon meets the world’s most notorious mass murderer, China’s Chairman Mao.

(above pics) DIFFERENT FACES OF REAL AMERICAN HITLER Type CRIMINALS throughout history smiling and deceiving

KERRY

RUMSFELD

OBAMA

BLAIR

SARCOZY

REAGAN

McCAIN

NIXON

AND ALL ARE MURDERES

***************************

Video: Female Veteran Violently Arrested By Feds At Syria Protest

Mikael Thalen
Storyleak
Sept. 3, 2013

A military veteran was arrested by Federal Parks Police in Philadelphia Friday for allegedly playing a banjo in the wrong place during a “No War With Syria” rally.

While performing to fellow protesters under a tree at Independence Mall, Emily Yates, an Iraq combat veteran and organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, was approached by several parks police officers and told to leave the area immediately. Yates, confused by the request, repeatedly attempted to engage the officers as to why she was being asked to leave. The officers felt that Yates wasn’t entitled to a response and answered her with a violent arrest instead.

See the video below:

“They’re manhandling me and I haven’t done anything wrong! All I wanted to do was know why I was being asked to leave!” Yates shouted as police forced her arms behind her back. “We live in a police state! We live in a f*cking police state! They’re damaging my body and my personal property! I went to war for this country!”

A defense fund set up by friends of Yates confirmed that she was taken to a Federal Detention Center on unknown charges. A friend and bystander who witnessed the incident unfold from across the street, who had also recently been arrested alongside Adam Kokesh by parks police for protesting, called it “the latest in a series of aggressive and unnecessary arrests by Federal Park Rangers in Philadelphia.”

“The Panic Hour is using all available resources to lend assistance and call attention to this blatant disregard for civil liberties at, of all places, the birthplace of liberty,” said N.A. Poe.

In light of continued scandals and the unfolding situation in Syria, which is now opposed by more than91 percent of the public, people across the country have taken to the streets in protest of President Obama’s disregard for constitutional law. Just last month, two “Impeach Obama” protestors weretackled and arrested for refusing to leave an overpass in Missouri. Officers claimed their first amendment was infringing on the safety of the public.

Unfortunately for the president, a backlash from the military has begun to grow. Viral pictures of military soldiers holding up signs reading “I will not fight for Al Qaeda in Syria” have been shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter. Even with a growing number of military and Congress members coming out against a strike, the State Department has reportedly told Fox News that Obama will act regardless.

Friends and family of Yates have been unable to make contact but expect her to see a judge sometime this week.

 

CIA Trained Al Qaeda Cell To Enter Syria

US sanctioned 50 man group to sneak over border into Syria with arms

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Sept 3, 2013

The New York Times reports that a 50 man cell of “rebels” trained and armed by the CIA and US special forces is to sneak over the border from Jordan into Syria this week to begin fighting government forces there, a move that should prompt concern given that moderate rebel forces are now fully infiltrated by extremist al Qaeda linked terrorists.

The details were revealed in a report detailing a meeting between the president and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, during which Obama assured them that covert action would be stepped up in an attempt to do more damage to the Syrian army.

Obama told the two that in addition to a limited strike, “we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition.”

The Times reports that “the C.I.A.’s program to arm the rebels would be deliberately limited at first to allow a trial run for American officials to monitor it before ramping up to a larger, more aggressive campaign.”

“There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition,” Graham said after the meeting.

Both Graham and McCain now say they are willing to vote to authorize military action by the US on Syria. During a press conference (full video here) McCain stated that a congressional vote against the administration’s request “would be catastrophic in its consequences” for US credibility internationally.

“It is all in the details, but I left the meeting feeling better than I felt before about what happens the day after and that the purpose of the attack is going to be a little more robust than I thought,” Graham said.

McCain has been pushing to arm Syrian rebels for some time, saying this week that it is “shameful” that the US had three months ago promised arms for the opposition, and failed to do so.

The Arizona Senator said in an interview that he had strongly urged the president on Monday to provide anti-tank and antiaircraft systems to the opposition and to attack the Syrian Air Force.

Graham added that he hoped the opposition would be given “a chance to speak directly to the American people” to allay fears that rebel forces are dominated by al Qaeda linked extremists.

“They’re not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal… to only have al-Qaeda run Syria,” Graham said.

However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, this is the exact scenario that is unfolding in Syria, according to intelligence sources and military experts.

Elements of the Free Syrian Army have merged with jihadist groups that have direct ties to al Qaeda groups. For months, video footage of brutal attacks led by such extremists have been surfacing online.

Scores of different Syrian rebel groups are pledging allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliategroup responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.

The New York Times has reported that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups.”

Military experts and former intelligence officials are on record as stating that the Syrian fighters who defected from the Assad military in order to protect civilians and innocent protesters have been almost completely sidelined, with all of the US support and logistics going to the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist-led Syrian Military Council backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

These Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners.

“The true FSA has not received any of the support from the international community, instead they have been marginalized, even though they are the majority of the support on the ground.” Officials at intelligence gathering group Stand Up America have noted, citing sources in contact with FSA Commanders.

Footage of such rebel brigades flying al Qaeda flags, praising and even singing about Osama Bin Ladenis legion.

The bottom line is that the CIA, with the blessing of the Obama administration, is once again training and arming extremists that have pledged to kill Americans.


The White House walk-and-talk that changed Obama’s mind on Syria

White House

President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisers in the White House Situation Room on Saturday to discuss strategy in Syria. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is fourth from right.

By Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent

A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.

Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.

NBC’s Chuck Todd describes the political process for seeking congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, and says that the president’s decision to wait on Congress is a departure from 30 years of strengthening executive branch power.

Returning from that walk, the president called his advisers in the early evening to inform them of his new decision.

The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration’s strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."

Obama’s National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.

Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.

But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week.  And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.

Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote.  “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said.  “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

While Obama’s advisers argued Friday night in private that the humiliating defeat for Cameron starkly illustrated the risks of asking for congressional input, the president responded that the vote in Parliament demonstrated exactly why he should seek a vote on this side of the Atlantic, senior officials told NBC News.

And, the president insisted, seeking legislative backing was the approach most consistent with his philosophy.  While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced.

Speaking to the nation early Saturday afternoon, Obama said he was “mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”    

President Obama says the nation should and will take action against the Syrian government, but not without congressional approval. Watch his full speech.

The president also noted, “while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

White House aides said they are fairly confident that Congress will grant them the authority to launch a strike, although they maintain that Obama would be acting within his constitutional authority even if Congress rejects the authorization and Obama orders military intervention.

Congress is not scheduled to return to Washington for debate until Sept. 9. The administration decided not to call them back early due to the Jewish holidays this week, a delay that the Pentagon also signed off on, saying that the wait won’t diminish U.S. military capabilities in the region. There’s an upside to that cooling-off period too, aides said. The delay gives Obama time to make his case to Congress and to keep pushing for international support.

“Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community,” the president said Saturday.  “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”

While the United States does not believe it needs military help in a strike, Obama will push allies for political backing when he attends the G20 summit in Russia next week.

Reaction from Congress was mostly positive in the hours after Obama detailed his position. A statement from House Speaker John Boehner other GOP leaders stated: “We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised” and noted Congress would begin debate when they return to Washington.  And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "President Obama is right that the debate and authorization by Congress for action will make our country and the response in Syria stronger.”

But a key group of Syrian rebels who have been fighting the Assad regime reacted in surprise and anger to the decision.

"The death will continue in Syria because of the (failure of the) leadership of the United States to act decisively at this point," said Louay Safi, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council. "Obama had the moral responsibility (to) act and not waiver."

 

Kerry: Samples from Syria tested positive for sarin

Secretary of State John Kerry tells David Gregory on Meet the Press that evidence suggests that Syrian leader Bashar Assad used the nerve agent sarin in his chemical weapons attack.

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that samples collected by first responders after the reported August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin.

"In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry said on NBC’s Meet The Press. "So this case is building and this case will build." 

Sarin is a man-made chemical warfare agent considered the most toxic and fast-acting of its kind. The odorless, colorless nerve agent interferes with an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, which controls nerve signals to the muscles.

Kerry said the use of chemical weapons puts Syrian President Bashar Assad in the same category as the world’s most bloody dictators.

"Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

Kerry’s statement comes the day after President Barack Obama announced that he will seek congressional authorization for a military strike in Syria. The U.S. has said it has "high confidence" in intelligence assessments that show the chemical weapons attack that killed over 1400 people – including hundreds of children – was launched by the Syrian regime.

The former Massachusetts senator said Sunday that he believes Congress will pass a measure to authorize the use of force in Syria.

WATCH: Kerry says, ‘I don’t think Congress will turn its back on this moment’

"I don’t believe that my former colleagues in the United States Senate and the House will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the 
credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925," he said.

But Kerry would not say whether the president would act even if Congress votes against intervention .

"I said that the president has the authority to act, but the Congress is going to do what’s right here," he answered when pressed by NBC’s David Gregory.

In a forceful speech on Friday, Kerry called Syrian President Bashar Assad a "thug and a murderer" who turned chemical weapons on innocent people in east Damascus.

"This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons," he said. "This is what Assad did to his own people."

On Sunday, Kerry declined to describe the new evidence of Sarin use as a ‘slam dunk’ in the case against Assad, but he reiterated that the United States continues to have "high confidence" in its case against the regime.

"The word "slam-dunk" should be retired from American national security issues," he said. "We are saying that the high confidence that the intelligence community has expressed and the case that I laid out the other day is growing stronger by the day."

 

Syrian state-run daily calls Obama move a retreat

By ALBERT AJI and RYAN LUCAS

Sep 1, 7:10 AM (ET)

(AP) President Barack Obama stands with Vice President Joe Biden as he makes a statement about the…
Full Image

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) – A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat."

The gloating tone in the front-page article in the Al-Thawra daily followed Obama’s unexpected announcement on Saturday that he would ask Congress to support a strike punishing the President Bashar Assad’s regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons. The decision marked a stark turnabout for the White House, which had appeared on the verge of ordering U.S. forces to launch a missile attack against Syria.

"Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.

The paper, which as a government outlet reflects regime thinking, also claimed that Obama’s reluctance to take military action stems from his "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies." The daily said the American leader worries about limited intervention turning into "an open war has pushed him to seek Congress’ consent."

Syria’s minister for reconciliation issues, Ali Haidar, echoed that line.

"Obama has given himself a chance to take a step backward by talking about Congress’ approval and to search for other parties to participate in the attack," Haidar told The Associated Press by telephone. "In other words, he wants to keep brandishing the sword of aggression on Syria without fully giving up the idea of an attack and even without setting a definite date for the aggression."

The U.S. Navy moved warships over the past week into the eastern Mediterranean as the Obama administration considered its options. With everything in place, Obama said Saturday that he had decided the U.S. should take military action and that he believes that he has the authority as commander-in-chief to "carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

But he added that he believes the U.S. "will be stronger" if he takes his case to Congress for its nod of approval before taking action.

Congress is scheduled to return from a summer break on Sept. 9, and in anticipation of the coming debate, Obama challenged lawmakers to consider "what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price."

The White House has sent Congress a draft of a resolution seeking approval for a military response to "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons going forward. The Senate will hold hearings next week so a vote can take place after Congress gets back to work.

The president’s strategy carries enormous risks to his and the nation’s credibility, which the administration has argued forcefully is on the line in Syria. Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.

Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, charted a similar course last week by asking the House of Commons to support military action against Syria, only to suffer a stinging defeat.

Across the Atlantic, Obama’s choice has sparked calls for French President Francois Hollande, who has backed calls for an armed response against Syria, to seek parliamentary approval before taking military action. Hollande is not constitutionally required to do so. France’s parliament is scheduled to debate the issue Wednesday, but no vote is scheduled

For some in Syria’s opposition who had put great hope in U.S. strikes, Obama’s decision was a source of despair. For others, it was seen as simply business as usual from a country that they say has done nothing to halt the massive trauma and bloodshed gripping Syria.

"We weren’t putting too much hope in the U.S strike," said Mohammed al-Tayeb, an opposition activist in Eastern Ghouta. "America was never a friend of ours, they’re still an enemy."

In the buildup to the potential strikes, the opposition and Damascus residents say the Assad regime moved it troops and military equipment out of bases to civilian areas.

The main Western-backed opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, said in a statement Sunday that the army repositioned rocket launchers, artillery and other heavy weapons inside residential neighborhoods in cities nationwide.

Two Damascus residents the AP spoke with confirmed the regime troop movements. One woman said soldiers had moved into a school next to her house and she was terrified.

With U.S. strikes no longer looming, the U.N. probe into the attack has at least a week and a half to analyze samples it took during on-site investigations before the specter of military action comes yet again to the fore.

The head of the U.N. team, Swedish professor Ake Sellstrom, is to brief U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later Sunday. The group of experts collected biological and environmental samples during their visits to the rebel-held Damascus suburbs that were hit in the Aug. 21 attack.

The inspectors left Syria on Saturday and arrived in The Hague, Netherlands. The samples they collected in Syria are to be repackaged and sent to laboratories around Europe to check them for traces of poison gas. The U.N. says there is no specific timeline for when their analysis will be completed.

There are widely varying death tolls from the suspected toxic gas attack. The aid group Doctors Without Borders says at least 355 people were killed, while the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring groups says it has identified 502 victims by name. A U.S. intelligence assessment says the attack killed 1,429 civilians, including more than 400 children.

In Cairo, Arab League foreign ministers were to hold an emergency session Sunday evening to discuss Syria. Last week, the 22-nation bloc condemned the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus but said it does not support military action without U.N. consent.

Lucas reported from Beirut. Associated Press writer Yasmine Saker in Beirut contributed to this report.

 

GOP CONGRESSMAN: Military Members Keep Telling Me To Vote No On Syria

PAUL SZOLDRA
Business Insider
September 1, 2013

After President Obama delivered a speech in the Rose Garden where he said the United States “should” strike Syria following a deadly chemical weapons attack, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.

“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces,” Amash tweeted. “The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.”

Now that Obama has deferred to congressional debate, a vote on striking Syria would likely come up on the week of Sep. 9. The President probably has the support of the Senate, but the vote could have some trouble in the House, as Josh Barro points out.

Since Amash’s initial tweet, he’s been retweeting comments that have been sent in from military members and veterans. Many of my own military sources have expressed reservations with action in Syria, especially following service in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Untitled

 

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began

1 Sep 2013 07:21

FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

Men search for survivors amid debris of collapsed buildings

Men search for survivors amid debris of collapsed buildings

REUTERS/Nour Fourat

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.

“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.

“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?

“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”

The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.

“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.

“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.

“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”

A man holds the body of a dead childA man holds the body of a dead child

Reuters

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.

The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.

Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.

“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.

“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.

“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.

“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.

“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”

Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.

UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.

They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.

It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.

On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.

Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.

Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.

But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.

He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.

Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”

He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.

“And I’m prepared to give that order.”

Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.

General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.

He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

Naval Officer: I Didn’t Join to Fight For Al-Qaeda

Infowars.com
September 1, 2013

Unidentified naval officer opposes attack on Syria in powerful image.

 

Analysis: Putin sees chance to turn tables on Obama at G20

Russia's President Vladimir Putin looks on during a meeting with journalists in the far eastern city of Vladivostok, August 31, 2013. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolskyi/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

By Timothy Heritage

MOSCOW | Sun Sep 1, 2013 9:51am EDT

(Reuters) – Less than three months after Vladimir Putin was cast as a pariah over Syria at the last big meeting of world leaders, the Russian president has glimpsed a chance to turn the tables on Barack Obama.

The U.S. president’s dilemma over a military response to an alleged poison gas attack in Syriameans Obama is the one who is under more pressure going into a G20 summit in St Petersburg on Thursday and Friday.

Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday, delaying any imminent strike to seek approval from the U.S. Congress.

Yet at a G8 summit in Northern Ireland in June, Putin was isolated over his backing for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and scowled his way through talks with Obama, who later likened him to a "bored kid in the back of the classroom".

Putin has ignored the jibe and stood his ground over Assad, dismissing Obama’s allegations that Syrian government forces carried out a chemical weapons attack on August 21.

Buoyed by growing pressure on the U.S., French and British leaders over Syria, the former KGB spy has also now hit back in comments referring ironically to Obama as a Nobel Peace laureate and portraying U.S. global policy as a failure.

"We need to remember what’s happened in the last decade, the number of times the United States has initiated armed conflicts in various parts of the world. Has it solved a single problem?" Putin asked reporters on Saturday in the city of Vladivostok.

"Afghanistan, as I said, Iraq … After all, there is no peace there, no democracy, which our partners allegedly sought," he said during a tour of Russia’s far east.

Denying as "utter nonsense" the idea that Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons when they were winning the civil war, Putin looked steely and confident.

After months of pressure to abandon Assad, he is sending a message to the West that he is ready to do battle over Syria in St Petersburg and sees an opportunity to portray the United States as the bad boy on the block.

"Of course the G20 is not a formal legal authority. It’s not a substitute for the U.N. Security Council, it can’t take decisions on the use of force. But it’s a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not take advantage of this?" he said.

"Is it in the United States’ interests once again to destroy the international security system, the fundamentals of international law? Will it strengthen the United States’ international standing? Hardly," he said.

PUTIN’S GRANDSTANDING

There was an element of grandstanding in Putin’s first public comments on the dispute over the poison gas which killed hundreds of people in areas held by Syrian rebels.

One of his aims is to deflect criticism at this week’s meeting of the 20 developed and emerging powers, including all five permanent members of the Security Council, at which Syria is likely to overshadow talks on the global economy.

Putin also seems intent on taking a swipe at Obama, who pulled out of a Russia-U.S. summit that was planned for this week after Moscow defied Washington by granting former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden a year’s asylum.

Putin still risks facing criticism over a law banning "gay propaganda" at the summit, and is accused abroad of clamping down on the opposition to reassert his authority following the biggest protests since he was first elected president in 2000.

But the tension over possible military strikes on Syria has ensured Obama has been the focus of world attention, rather than Putin, in the run-up to the G20 – which will consider issues such as economic growth, unemployment and financial regulation.

There has been no repeat of the sentiment expressed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the eve of the G8 summit. Upset by Russia’s position on Syria, he said the G8 group of industrialized countries was in reality the "G7 plus one".

Any hopes in the West that Russia would shift stance because of the use of chemical weapons now look to have been frustrated.

Russian officials have reiterated that Moscow, an important arms supplier to Assad, has the right to deliver such weapons and that their sale does not break international law.

Moscow, which has blocked earlier efforts at the United Nations Security Council to condemn Assad and tighten sanctions on his government, has also made clear it is not about to support moves against Damascus at the United Nations.

Putin says the attack may have been a provocation by rebels fighting Assad, intended to hasten U.S. military intervention, and has used criticism of Washington over Syria to whip up anti-American sentiment and shore up support among Russian voters.

"From Russian officials and certainly the Russian media, there continue to be allegations that the United States has an agenda focused on regime change (in Syria), that the United States is driving tumult in the Middle East for its own ends," a senior U.S. administration official in Washington said.

"There is also a cynical element where anti-Americanism has been successful to rally public opinion."

PUTIN EMBOLDENED

Putin, in fact, seems emboldened as Obama’s problems pile up and some of his allies face difficulties over Syria.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is under pressure after parliament refused to back military action and Obama’s decision to seek Congress’ approval for strikes has put French President Francois Hollande under pressure to let deputies have a say.

Putin said the British parliamentary vote last Thursday was a sign that even people in countries closely allied to the United States were drawing conclusions from what he depicted as Washington’s foreign policy mistakes.

"Even there, there are people who are guided by national interests and common sense, people who value their sovereignty," Putin said.

Any prospect of "shaming" Putin into a change of tack over Syria is also increasingly seen abroad as unlikely to work.

"I don’t get the sense that Russia is overly concerned about its international image in this regard," said the senior U.S. administration official. "It takes pride in being independent … Russia is not timid or bashful when it comes to Syria support."

(Additional reporting by Lidia Kelly and Steve Gutterman in Moscow, Denis Dyomkin in Vladivostok and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; editing by David Stamp)

 

Paul: ’50/50′ chance that House will vote down Syria authorization

Sun Sep 1, 2013 10:35 AM EDT

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News

A leading skeptic of U.S. intervention in conflicts abroad said Sunday that he believes there is only a "50/50" chance that the GOP-controlled House will vote to authorize the use of U.S military force in the Syria.

"I think it’s at least 50/50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war," Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

"I think the Senate will rubber stamp what [Obama] wants but I think the House will be a much closer vote," he added. "And there are a lot of questions we have to ask."

Paul, a staunch defender of civil liberties who has battled against members of his own party over the government’s use of drones and NSA data collection programs, said he believes it’s a "mistake" to get involved in a civil war in Syria that could escalate "out of control."

But he praised President Barack Obama’s announcement Saturday that he will seek congressional authority for military intervention in the civil war-torn country.

Other influential GOP leaders also indicated Sunday that Obama may lose the vote.

"“I think it is going to be difficult to get the vote through in Congress, especially when there’s going to be time over the next nine days for opposition to build up to it,” said New York Rep. Peter King on Fox News Sunday. King, who sharply criticized Obama on Friday for "abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief" for seeking congressional authorization, said Congress would "probably" reject authorization if the vote was held today.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said he does not believe Congress will authorize the strike. 

But the Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee said he believes the authorization will ultimately pass.

"I think at the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion,”  Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan said on CNN. “This is a national security issue. This isn’t about Barack Obama versus the Congress. This isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats.”

Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he believes Congress will vote to authorize military action, but he would not say if the president will act regardless of the outcome of the debate on Capitol HIll.

"I said that the president has the authority to act, but the Congress is going to do what’s right here," he said.

Shortly after Kerry’s appearance on the program, Paul shot back at Kerry, a decorated war veteran who became an outspoken critic of Vietnam War after serving in that conflict.

"I see a young John Kerry who went to war, and I wish he remembered more of how awful war is and that it shouldn’t be a desired outcome," Paul said.

 

Video: Salon Attacks Ron Paul, Infowars for Calling Out Syrian False Flag Attack

Anthony Gucciardi
Storyleak
September 1, 2013

Salon has gone on the offensive against Ron Paul and other ‘conspiracy-prone’ thinkers following an article that revealed the former Congressman had labeled the Syrian chemical attacks as a ‘false flag’ initiative to launch war.

A notion that a large number of prominent figures are now confirming and re-iterating, showing just how behind the tired mainstream media truly is. In fact, it seems like there is only a very tiny minority in the nation that actually trusts the lies spewed forth from Mr. ‘WMD’ Kerry and his false claims about the chemical attacks. This, of course, coincides with the reality that only 9 percent of Americans currently support a war effort against Syria.

And it seems the establishment is very upset that staged chemical attacks cannot change that figure among the overwhelming evidence.

But don’t take my word for it. In fact, don’t even take Ron Paul’s word for it. As it turns out, more than a few prominent individuals have gone on record in stating that the chemical attacks were initiated by the Obama-backed Syrian rebels in order to start a war. Even three-time presidential adviser Pat Buchanan has gone on air in saying that the whole event ‘reeks of a false flag’ operation to launch full-scale war against Syria and Assad.

Buchanan, of course, must be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ kook according to Salon. And by that logic, anyone with a single brain cell and the capacity to read the news is now a conspiracy theorist. This therefore includes Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who recently told journalists:

“That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States.”

What a conspiracy theorist, huh?

Even mega news organizations like The Independent are asking why Obama has sided with al-Qaeda, and the rebels have actually now taken full credit for the chemical attacks. Add in the fact that Obama has been secretly supporting the Syrian rebels who behead Christians and burn down villages since 2011under ‘secret orders’ reported by Reuters, and you begin to realize the true kooks are the ones who continue to follow this mad man and his handlers.

After classified briefing, lawmakers skeptical on Syria attack

By Ed O’Keefe and Paul Kane, Published: September 1 at 4:37 pm

The Obama administration’s request for U.S. military intervention in Syria would not pass the Congress as written because it is too broad, a senior senator said Sunday after a classified briefing on the situation.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate, told reporters after the meeting that the resolution seeking military force is “too open ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

Leahy’s comments echoed the views of dozens of lawmakers who left the briefing and said they want to see the resolution more closely resemble President Obama’s own pledge that any strike be limited in scope.

“The president’s request is open-ended,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution. But I’m not too sure that the people who answered that are the people that have that decision to make.”

The briefing, held in the expansive Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, crossed the two-hour mark shortly after 4 p.m. Some lawmakers exited the meeting in a rush to get to airports for flights home, but dozens remained inside the hall.

A quartet of administration officials, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, presented evidence of the alleged chemical attack and then turned over the meeting to questions, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

Lawmakers from both parties said there was widespread agreement with the evidence that Bashar al-Assad’s regime carried out the chemical attacks — but still doubt about whether U.S. military strikes would achieve a meaningful result.

“The evidence at this point is overwhelming,” Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said.

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led the push to force a congressional vote on military intervention, said “80 percent” of the skeptics in the room doubted that a limited strike would achieve any clear result and might instead lead to bad consequences. “There is more a question of,” he said, “is this the right approach?”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking House Republican, said lawmakers in the meeting expressed concern about “how limited and how focused any kind of a potential military action would be. I think they’re seeking clarification about what exactly the president is proposing. There are concerns about the resolution being too broad.”

“Members are becoming more informed and they’re asking questions and that’s all part of the decision,” she said.

As head of the House GOP Conference, McMorris Rodgers potentially holds sway over several potential Republican votes. But she said she remains undecided.

“It’s a difficult decision,” she said. “I have a lot of concerns. I’m skeptical, but I’m going to listen and continue to learn.”

Lawmakers who exited the briefing early also expressed skepticism about the presentation, saying they expect to hear more from the Obama administration in the coming days.

“There’s more reading to do and that will happen over the course of the week,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who said he was still undecided on how he would vote.

So is Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who said that, “I’m just not sure the case has been clearly made.”

Quigley, DesJarlais and others canceled weekend plans and made quick arrangements for flights to Washington, but also planned to race home Sunday night.

“It’s a pretty important issue, so I don’t mind” coming back, DesJarlais said.

Many said they were eager to come back to Washington to review classified documents made available to them and also attend the in-person briefing.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said he would wait to review reports by United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria before making a decision. But he’s also worried that Obama might still strike Syria even if Congress rejects a use of force resolution.

“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story.”

Follow Ed O’Keefe on Twitter: @edatpost

Follow Paul Kane on Twitter: @pkcapitol

 

And Now, It’s Golfing Time (Or Putin +1, Obama 0)

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 17:00 -0400

After bringing the world to the edge of WWIII and nearly giving the first order to launch the ironically named Patriot missile, then dramatically punting in the very last second whether to invade Syria to Congress, something he should have done from the every beginning, Obama went on to do what he does best.

Politico explains:

Right after shipping responsibility for authorizing an attack on Syria, President Barack Obama returned to his comfort zone: The golf course.

Obama’s motorcade left the White House at 2:30 p.m., about 30 minutes after completing his statement.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are playing at Fort Belvoir, Va., along with White House trip director Marvin Nicholson and Walter Nicholson, according to the White House.

And so after last month’s Snowden humiliation, Russia’s Putin just schooled the US golfer-in-chief again. Although, was there ever any doubt?

The Russian president:

Action man: Vladimir Putin is often pictured partaking in various sporting activities - often topless - such as horse riding in southern Siberia's Tuva region

Topless: Russia's president Vladimir Putin went topless during a fishing trip to a national nature reserve in Tuva, Russia

Topless: Russia's president Vladimir Putin went topless during a fishing trip to a national nature reserve in Tuva, Russia

He landed a 21kg pike on a trip to Siberia.

Russia's president Putin with binoculars on the vacation

Reindeer me! Putin was also introduced to some local reindeer when he reached dry land

Active: Vladimir Putin swimming in a lake in southern Siberia's Tuva region

Versatile: Vladimir Putin plays the piano at a charity concert for children suffering from eye diseases and cancer in St. Petersburg

Animal lover: Putin flew a hang-glider following his 2012 election win to shepherd a flock of cranes on their migratory route

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Russia's President Vladimir Putin holding a pistol during his visit to a newly-built headquarters of the Russian General Staff's Main Intelligence Department (GRU) in Moscow.

Need for speed: Vladimir Putin driving a Renault Formula One car on a special racing track in the Leningrad region outside St. Petersburg

* * *

… And the American:

A picture is worth 1,000 words: The teleprompter has two faces

And much, much, much more

After classified briefing, lawmakers skeptical on Syria attack

By Ed O’Keefe and Paul Kane, Published: September 1 at 4:37 pm

The Obama administration’s request for U.S. military intervention in Syria would not pass the Congress as written because it is too broad, a senior senator said Sunday after a classified briefing on the situation.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate, told reporters after the meeting that the resolution seeking military force is “too open ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

Leahy’s comments echoed the views of dozens of lawmakers who left the briefing and said they want to see the resolution more closely resemble President Obama’s own pledge that any strike be limited in scope.

“The president’s request is open-ended,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution. But I’m not too sure that the people who answered that are the people that have that decision to make.”

The briefing, held in the expansive Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, crossed the two-hour mark shortly after 4 p.m. Some lawmakers exited the meeting in a rush to get to airports for flights home, but dozens remained inside the hall.

A quartet of administration officials, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, presented evidence of the alleged chemical attack and then turned over the meeting to questions, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

Lawmakers from both parties said there was widespread agreement with the evidence that Bashar al-Assad’s regime carried out the chemical attacks — but still doubt about whether U.S. military strikes would achieve a meaningful result.

“The evidence at this point is overwhelming,” Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said.

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led the push to force a congressional vote on military intervention, said “80 percent” of the skeptics in the room doubted that a limited strike would achieve any clear result and might instead lead to bad consequences. “There is more a question of,” he said, “is this the right approach?”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking House Republican, said lawmakers in the meeting expressed concern about “how limited and how focused any kind of a potential military action would be. I think they’re seeking clarification about what exactly the president is proposing. There are concerns about the resolution being too broad.”

“Members are becoming more informed and they’re asking questions and that’s all part of the decision,” she said.

As head of the House GOP Conference, McMorris Rodgers potentially holds sway over several potential Republican votes. But she said she remains undecided.

“It’s a difficult decision,” she said. “I have a lot of concerns. I’m skeptical, but I’m going to listen and continue to learn.”

Lawmakers who exited the briefing early also expressed skepticism about the presentation, saying they expect to hear more from the Obama administration in the coming days.

“There’s more reading to do and that will happen over the course of the week,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who said he was still undecided on how he would vote.

So is Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), who said that, “I’m just not sure the case has been clearly made.”

Quigley, DesJarlais and others canceled weekend plans and made quick arrangements for flights to Washington, but also planned to race home Sunday night.

“It’s a pretty important issue, so I don’t mind” coming back, DesJarlais said.

Many said they were eager to come back to Washington to review classified documents made available to them and also attend the in-person briefing.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said he would wait to review reports by United Nations inspectors on the ground in Syria before making a decision. But he’s also worried that Obama might still strike Syria even if Congress rejects a use of force resolution.

“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story.”

 

Syria opposition says Assad deploying human shields for air strikes

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad (centre-R) meets Alaeddin Boroujerdi, (centre-L) head of the Iranian parliamentary committee for national security and foreign policy, and his delegation, in Damascus September 1, 2013 in this handout released by Syria's national news agency SANA. REUTERS/SANA/Handout via Reuters

ISTANBUL | Sun Sep 1, 2013 3:51pm EDT

(Reuters) – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has moved military equipment and personnel to civilian areas and put prisoners in military sites as human shields against any Western air strikes, the opposition said on Sunday.

The Istanbul-based opposition coalition said rockets, Scud missiles and launchers as well as soldiers had been moved to locations including schools, university dormitories and government buildings inside cities.

"Reports from inside Syria confirm that Assad has (also)ordered detainees to be moved to military targets and to be used as human shields against possible Western air strikes," the opposition coalition said in a statement.

Reuters could not independently verify the reports, and attempts to reach Syrian officials for comment were unsuccessful.

Ex-soldiers told Reuters last week that military sites in Syria were being packed with soldiers who had been effectively imprisoned by their superiors over doubts about their loyalty, making them possible casualties in any U.S.-led air strikes.

Thousands of loyal security forces and militia, meanwhile, have moved into schools and residential buildings in Damascus, mixing with the civilian population in the hope of escaping a Western strike, residents say.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday he would seek congressional consent before taking action against Damascus for its apparent use of chemical weapons, a move likely to delay an attack for at least 10 days.

Critics say the delay is simply buying Assad more time.

The opposition coalition earlier called on the U.S. Congress to back a military intervention and said international inaction during the conflict, now in its third year, had emboldened Assad and allowed the violence to escalate.

(Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Jon Boyle)

 

Pressure on Cameron for new vote on Syria strikes

David Cameron is under increasing pressure to return to Parliament for another vote on British military action against Syria after the Americans postponed missile strikes for at least a week.

David Cameron arrives at Downing St after cutting short his holiday

Last week the Prime Minister cut short his holiday and returned to Downing Street because of the situation in Syria. This week he will be under increasing pressure to return to Parliament for another vote on British military action. Photo: REUTERS

By Robert Winnett and Peter Dominiczak

10:00PM BST 01 Sep 2013

Lord Howard, a former Conservative leader, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Ashdown, a former Liberal Democrat leader, led calls to vote again on Sunday.

Sir Malcolm, the chairman of the intelligence and security committee, said the situation has “moved on dramatically now” and that the evidence is “becoming more compelling every day”.

In his Daily Telegraph column on Monday, Boris Johnson, the London mayor, also suggests another motion could be put “inviting British participation”. Mr Johnson, who has been highly sceptical of intervening in Syria, believes that Parliament has helped the international community by allowing a delay in the action for further evidence to be collected.

Signs of Labour disagreements over Ed Miliband’s response to the Syrian crisis were also beginning to emerge on Sunday.

Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, became the first senior Labour figure to admit that the case against the Assad regime over last month’s chemical weapons attack was not in doubt.

Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour Cabinet minister, suggested he would now support a second Parliamentary vote being called.

George Osborne and William Hague, Mr Cameron’s two most senior Cabinet colleagues, on Sunday appeared to rule out a second vote on Syrian action.

However, Mr Hague, the Foreign Secretary, laid out a series of conditions which would have to be met before action could be reconsidered – primarily involving Mr Miliband offering to cooperate. He also warned that if Bashar al-Assad is not confronted now it would lead ultimately to a “confrontation [which] will only be bigger and more painful.”

Since last Thursday, when MPs rejected government backing for potential military action against Syria by just 13 votes, the US administration has released detailed intelligence on Assad’s alleged involvement in a chemical weapons attack on a suburb of Damascus. A report from UN weapons inspectors is also imminent and on Sunday a new intelligence report from France suggested that Assad had amassed 1,000 tons of chemical weapons.

On Sunday, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, said his government had now concluded that sarin gas was used in the attack, which killed 1,429 people including 426 children. The Americans set out detailed intelligence on the attack, including information about where the missiles had been fired from, telephone intercepts and other “evidence”. This compares with an overall conclusion from British intelligence last week that the Syrian leader was “highly likely” to have been responsible.

Assad said he would “confront any external aggression”.

The US government had been expected to launch cruise missile strikes over the weekend but President Obama said on Saturday that he would now be seeking the support of the US Congress, in a vote which will not happen before next week.

The revised US timetable and the emerging intelligence has led to calls from some of Britain’s most senior politicians for Parliament to be given another vote.

Many observers believe that Mr Cameron unnecessarily rushed last week’s vote without properly detailing the case for action. Dozens of MPs were away on holiday and unable to vote. A Labour “road map” plan for action was also defeated.

On Sunday, Lord Howard said: “I think Parliament, or at least the Opposition in Parliament, last week got itself into something of a muddle.” He said he hoped the US President’s speech “will give Parliament an opportunity to think again and to come to a different conclusion”. Sir Malcolm Rifkind also backed such a prospect. “A lot of MPs, including Mr Miliband and his colleagues who voted against last Thursday, did so because they said it was premature,” he said.

“And he and our Prime Minister ought to get together and say, if we can now agree the evidence is compelling then Parliament ought to have the opportunity to debate the matter again.”

Lord Ashdown told the BBC that parliament could “reconsider its position”.

Mr Osborne said he did not believe that more evidence or the conclusion of the UN work in Syria would win over MPs. “Parliament has spoken,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. Mr Hague also said he could not envisage the circumstances of Parliament overturning its objections.

But he added: “I think anybody looking at this objectively would see that in order for Parliament in any circumstances to come to a different conclusion then people would have to be more persuaded by the evidence …

“And the Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take ‘yes’ for an answer in terms of the motion that we present to the House of Commons.”

Colonel Bob Stewart, a Conservative MP and former UN Commander in Bosnia, said on Sunday night: “I don’t see how we [Parliament] can’t discuss it again.”


252 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, etc.

freedomoutpost.com
August 29, 2013

lies

The following is a contribution from Dan from Squirrel Hill. The original title of the article is “Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 252 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.” it’s lengthy, but is a ‘one-stop shop’ for all the dirty details on the Obama presidency.

Every President, every politician, and every human being tells lies and engages in acts of hypocrisy. But Barack Obama does these things to a far greater degree than anyone else that I have ever known of. His campaign promises were so much better sounding than anyone else’s – no lobbyists in his administration, waiting five days before signing all non-emergency bills so people would have time to read them, putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN, reading every bill line by line to make sure money isn’t being wasted, prosecution of Wall St. criminals, ending raids against medical marijuana in states where it’s legal, high levels of transparency. Obama’s promises of these wonderful things sounded inspiring and sincere. They sounded so much better than the promises of any other President. So when Obama broke these promises, it felt so much worse than when other Presidents broke their promises.

In the 2008 United States election, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. In the 2012 election, I voted for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Those who are of a more leftist persuasion than myself might want to consider voting for the Green Party in future elections.

Some of the things on this list are major events that should scare the daylights out of any true liberal who cares about civil liberties.

Other things on this list are medium things that some Obama supporters may dislike, but would be willing to overlook in light of the things that Obama has done which they like.

And some of the things on this list may seem trivial, but I still think they are an interesting reflection of the kinds of policies that Obama supports.

Every claim that I make in this list is sourced. Click on the blue text to see the sources. I have cited a wide variety of sources, from right wing, to left wing, to middle of the road.

I welcome any comments and criticisms that you may have. If you say my list is wrong, please back up your claim by citing specific examples.

And now, on with the list:

1) Carried out military interventionism in Libya without Congressional approval

In June 2011, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that Obama had violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval.

2) Gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton – just like Bush did

In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011, just hours after the Justice Department had said it would pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of using kickbacks to get foreign contracts.

3) Has an administration full of lobbyists, after promising he wouldn’t have any

While running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.

4) Has close ties to Wall St., but pretends to support Occupy Wall St.

Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, the truth is that he has raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. In October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.

5) Broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay

Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

6) Supported the $700 billion TARP corporate-welfare bailout just like Bush

While Senator, Obama voted for the $700 billion TARP bank bailout bill. The bailout rewarded irresponsible and illegal behavior. It redirected resources from more productive uses to less productive uses. It punished the hard working taxpayers who had played by the rules and obeyed the law. It created horrible incentives, and sent the wrong message. The bailout was evil because it rewarded the bad people and punished the good people. No society that does this can expect to remain free or prosperous. Instead of bailing out these corrupt corporations, we should have let them cease to exist, like we did with Enron.

7) Waged the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president, which was the opposite of what he had promised

In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”

However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In July 2010, the DEA raidedat least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.

In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went “far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.” In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote: “The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.” In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote: “Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.” In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had “strong concerns” about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district. In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said, “I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients. In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana. In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA. In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords. During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.

In July 2013, the DEA conducted multiple medical marijuana raids in Washington state, including the cities of Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle.

In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana. Obama’s marijuana smoking wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine – how cold hearted can a person be?

8) Nominated a six-time tax cheater to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws

Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.

Prior to his nomination, Geithner had:

1) Illegally failed to pay more than $34,000 in social security and Medicare taxes

2) Illegally declared the cost of his children’s summer camp as a form of day care.

3) Illegally failed to pay the early withdrawal penalty when he took money out of his retirement plan

4) Illegally declared non-eligible items as a charitable deduction

5) Illegally declared something which was ineligible as a small business deduction

6) Illegally declared utility expenses which had actually been for his personal use

9) Gave tax dollars to AIG executives, then pretended to be outraged about it

Obama signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” However, after reading “line by line” and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, “Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay… How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” and also said that he would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”

10) Expanded Bush’s unconstitutional government faith based programs

Obama expanded the federal government’s faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush.

11) Supported Bush’s unconstitutional Patriot Act

In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act.

12) Increased the national debt more in one term than Bush did in two

The national debt increased more during Obama’s first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

13) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without filing any charges

In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power toindefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.

14) Agrees with Bush’s support of unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping

President Obama has defended warrantless wiretapping.

15) Avoided prosecution of Wall. St criminals

Although Obama had promised to prosecute Wall St. criminals, during his entire first term, his administration did not file any criminal charges against any of the top financial executives.

16) Had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process

Obama had four U.S. citizens killed without judicial process.

The ACLU accused Obama of violating the U.S. Constitution for doing this.

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama’s actions might be an impeachable offense.

17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employees

In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.

18) Stole money from retired teachers and police officers

During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. Some of these secured creditors were retired teachers and police officers from Indiana. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, wrote, “Upsetting this fixed hierarchy among creditors is just an illegal taking of property from one group of creditors for the benefit of another, which should be struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds.” Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, wrote that Obama’s treatment of secured creditors was “dangerous to the rule of law.” The Economistwrote that Obama’s actions could “establish a terrible precedent. Bankruptcy exists to sort legal claims on assets. If it becomes a tool of social policy, who will then lend to struggling firms in which the government has a political interest?” Francis Cianfrocca, the CEO of Bayshore Networks, wrote that Obama’s actions were “an astonishingly reckless abrogation of contract law that will introduce a new level of uncertainty into business transactions at all levels, and make wealth generation more difficult going forward… An extraordinary uncertainty has been created when the most powerful man in the world can rewrite contracts and choose winners and losers in private negotiations as he sees fit. Since this is an unquantifiable uncertainty, and not a quantifiable risk, its effect on business and investor confidence will be large and unpredictable. As in the 1930s, a time when government also cavalierly rewrote private contracts, the prudent approach for business will be to invest minimally and wait for another administration.”

19) Supported release of convicted mass murderer

In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison.

20) Illegally put thousands of guns into hands of criminals

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

21) Fired Inspector General for discovering that Obama’s friend had embezzled government funds

In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was “confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.

22) Lied about putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN

Although Obama had made a campaign promise to have all of the health care reform negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, he broke that promise after he was elected.

The secrecy of these negotiations was so strong that U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

23) Lied about letting people keep their health insurance

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people… If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Also before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

“Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.”

However, after Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office said that the law would cause seven million people to lose their employer provided insurance.

After Obamacare was passed, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drophealth insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated

“… new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26… meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Also, after Obamacare was passed, the Franciscan University of Steubenville dropped its coverage in response to the law.

Universal Orlando dropped its coverage for part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In addition, after Obamacare was passed, Forbes reported

“The House Ways and Means Committee has released a new report that sheds light onto how Obamacare incentivizes companies to dump their workers onto the new law’s subsidized exchanges.”

Also after Obamacare was passed, MSN reported

“The Affordable Care Act mandate most commonly known as Obamacare has some tight stipulations that, CNN says, are forcing health care companies to rip up most of their current plans and draft new ones that comply. According to a University of Chicago study, just about half of the individual health care plans currently on the market won’t cut it once key provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in next year.”

Furthermore, it was reported that Obamacare would cause 58,000 Aetna and UnitedHealth Group customers in California to lose their insurance.

In response to Obamacare, some employers have dropped coverage for their employees’ spouses.

The chain of Wegmans supermarkets cancelled the policies of its part time employees in response to Obamacare.

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare

“will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits… these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable… we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans”

24) Lied about the cost of Obamacare

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama promised

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

However, after Obama signed it, the Washington Post reported that it would add more than $340 billion to the budget deficit over the next decade.

In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obamacare would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised.

In May 2013, it was reported that Obamacare’s program for high risk patients was more expensive than what Obama had promised.

25) Gave tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claimed the money was for “green energy”

In 2009 the Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company’s shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money onlobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had manymeetings with White House officials.

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product forless than the cost of production. In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his stimulus program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” The Washington Post wrote of this, “Administration officials and outside advisers warned that President Obama should consider dropping plans to visit a solar startup company in 2010 because its mounting financial problems might ultimately embarrass the White House.” Solyndra was a private company, but had been planning to use its government loans as a means of going public – so when Obama knowingly overstated the company’s condition in order to help his friends at Solyndra, he broke the same law that Martha Stewart had been sent to prison for breaking.

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company’s CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company’s founder, to examine computer files and documents. Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama’s plan to support clean energy technologies.

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company’s business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying “There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company.” Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that “It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten… We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable.”

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right… Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.”

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department’s actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife’s law firm had done work for the company.

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars’ worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, “That really makes me sad… Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that.”

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.

Solyndra was not the only “green energy” company involved in this type of fraud. After Obama gave Raser Technologies $33 million to build a power plant, the company declared bankruptcy, and owed $1.5 million in back taxes. After Obama gave Abound Solar, Inc. a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories, the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. After Obama gave Beacon Power a $43 million loan guarantee to build green energy storage, the company filed for bankruptcy. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Although Obama stated that all of the “green energy” companies that received taxpayer money were chosen “based solely on their merits,” the truth is that 71% of these grants and loans went to Obama donors and fundraisers, who raised $457,834 for his campaign, and were later approved for grants and loans totaling more than $11 billion. By November 2011, the Energy Department’s inspector general had begun more than 100 criminal investigations related to Obama’s stimulus. Although an “independent” review said that Obama had not done anything wrong, it was later reported that Herbert M. Allison Jr., the person who had conducted this “independent” review, donated $52,500 to Obama’s campaign.

26) Had “off the record” meetings with lobbyists

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”

27) Falsely claimed to believe in public education

Although Obama said, “We need to uphold the ideal of public education,” he expressed his true opinion of America’s public education system by sendinghis own children to private schools while living in Chicago and Washington D.C.

28) Had armed SWAT agents raid a law-abiding guitar factory because it was owned by a Republican

President Obama had armed SWAT agents raid the Gibson guitar factory, ordered the employees to leave, and seized guitars and other property from the factory – and all of this happened without any charges being filed.

It was later reported that Gibson had not broken any U.S. laws.

Obama’s so-called justification for the raid was that Gibson had broken environmental laws from India regarding the imported wood that Gibson had been using.

However, Gibson claimed that it had not broken any Indian laws – and no charges were filed against it.

In addition, it was also reported that Henry E. Juszkiewicz, the CEO of Gibson, was a Republican donor.

Meanwhile, C.F. Martin & Company, Gibsons’s competitor, had used the exact same imported wood, but hadnot gotten raided. Chris Martin IV, the CEO of Martin, was a Democratic donor.

29) Shut down Amish farm

In February 2012, Obama shut down an Amish farm for selling unpasteurized milk across state lines, even though the customers were happy with what they were buying.

30) Rewarded his fundraisers by giving them federal jobs

Although Obama had promised to have “the most sweeping ethics reform in history,” and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers.

31) Ignored constitutional requirements for appointees

In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama’s dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.

32) Gave tax dollars to corrupt private contractors

While Obama was a state Senator in Illinois, he used tax dollars to build 504 units of slum housing, which had mice and backed up sewage. Federal inspectors graded the condition of the housing so bad that the buildings faced demolition.

33) Used tax dollars to glorify murderers

The Obama administration spent $1.6 million to restore graffiti that glorified communist murderers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

34) Falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress

Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress.

35) Supported new bailouts for speculators who caused housing bubble

In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble.

36) Spent $205,075 of taxpayer money on a shrubbery which nurseries sell for $16

As part of his economic stimulus, Obama spent $205,075 of taxpayer money to relocate and care for a single specimen of Arctostaphylos franciscana, a shrubbery which nurseries sell for $16.

37) Spent taxpayer money to see if using cocaine helped rats to enjoy the music of Miles Davis

Obama’s administration funded a study to see whether or not rats’ enjoyment of the music of Miles Davis was increased when the rats were high on cocaine.

38) Tried to outlaw family farms

In April 2012, the Obama administration proposed new regulations which would prohibit farm children under 18 from working at grain elevators, silos, feed lots, stockyards, and livestock auctions, as well as from storing, marketing and transporting farm product raw materials. Critics claimed that this would prevent children from the common practice of working on their friends’ and relatives’ farms, and that farm children did not need “help” from a community organizer in Washington.

39) Auctioned off ambassadorship to the Netherlands

In April 2012, Obama nominated Timothy Broas, who had “bundled” more than $500,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.

40) Claimed that written tests are a form of “racial discrimination”

The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, andDayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.

41) Made the TSA even more abusive and ridiculous than it had been under Bush

The Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused the boy to tremble in fear. The Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-oldgirl with cerebral palsy. The Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.” The Obama administration placed an 18-month-old girl on its no fly list. The Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger. The Obama administration forced a 95-year-old cancer patient to remove her adult diaper and fly without it. The Obama administration ripped open the urostomy bag of a 61-year-oldbladder cancer survivor, and forced him to fly covered in his own urine.

42) Illegally demanded monetary payment for Freedom of Information Act request

The Obama administration demanded that the Goldwater Institute pay$78,935.80 before it would share public records which it had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

43) Fined public school $15,000 for selling soda

The Obama administration fined a high school $15,000 for selling soda to students during lunch.

44) Conducted dangerous and illegal scientific experiments on people

From January 2010 through June 2011, the Obama administration conducted illegal scientific experiments which exposed 42 people to dangerous levels of toxins.

45) Gave middle finger to Vietnam veterans, their families, and their friends

On Memorial Day 2012, Obama prevented Vietnam veterans and their friends and families from visiting the Vietnam memorial for seven hours, so Obama could have his picture taken.

46) Had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors

In July 2009, Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors, and fired the CEO.

47) Forced banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford to pay them back

While working as a “community organizer,” Obama filed lawsuits which forced banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit and low incomes. As a result, many of these people ended up defaulting on their mortgages. As their attorney, Obama collected $23,000 in legal fees for himself.

Then in April 2013, during Obama’s second term as President, the Washington Post reported that President Obama was still pressuring banks “to make home loans to people with weaker credit.”

48) Stole money from retired Delphi employees

In 2009, Obama eliminated the pensions of 20,000 retired Delphi employees.

49) Used taxpayer money to buy soda for $3.40 per can

During Obama’s presidency, the federal government repeatedly purchased soda for a cost of $3.40 per can. Obama did not express any desire to switch to a cheaper seller, such as Costco, amazon.com, or Wal-Mart – or to an even still cheaper seller such as a wholesaler. Instead, Obama repeatedly forced taxpayers to pay these outrageous prices for soda.

50) Paid $7 million per household to connect people to the internet

Obama’s stimulus paid to connect some households in Montana to the internet, at a cost of $7 million per household.

51) Had a double standard for Bain Capital

Although Obama criticized Mitt Romney for his involvement with Bain Capital, Obama hired Jeff Zients, a former consultant at Bain (and who had an estimated personal wealth of $200 million) to be his budget director.

52) Broke promise to teen campaign volunteers

Obama had promised to his teen campaign volunteers that if they each spent nine hours going door to door on Obama’s behalf, he would invite them to attend his speech of September 6, 2012. However, after the teens did the volunteer work, Obama broke his promise. One of these volunteers, Madeline Frank, age 16, of Charlotte, North Carolina, said of this “I’ve been looking forward to this for a really long time. I am just feeling really let down and like bummed. It was kind of my dream to see him speak, so definitely really sad.”

53) Falsely claimed to know more about Judaism than any other President

Obama falsely claimed to know more about Judaism than any other President.

54) Exempted wind farms from the penalties that other electric producers get for killing birds

In May 2013, NPR reported:

The Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines.

But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly.

“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK,” said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody.

More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don’t look up. As they scan for food, they don’t notice the industrial turbine blades until it’s too late.

The rehabilitation coordinator for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Michael Tincher, said he euthanized two golden eagles found starving and near death near wind farms. Both had injuries he’d never seen before: One of their wings appeared to be twisted off.

“There is nothing in the evolution of eagles that would come near to describing a wind turbine. There has never been an opportunity to adapt to that sort of threat,” said Grainger Hunt, an eagle expert who researches the U.S. wind-power industry’s deadliest location, a northern California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.

Under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the death of a single bird without a permit is illegal.

But under the Obama administration’s new guidelines, wind-energy companies — and only wind-energy companies — are held to a different standard.

Eagles take five years to reach the age when they can reproduce, and often they only produce one chick a year.

55) Falsely claimed that he had never belonged to the New Party

Obama falsely claimed that he had never belonged to the New Party, which is a third political party.

56) Supported punishing students based on their race instead of on their behavior

Obama expressed support for a proposal which would punish students based on their race instead of on their behavior.

57) Used “off the books” funding for military interventionism

In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same “off the books” funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama requested an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator.

58) Tried to silence criticism of auto-bailouts

The Obama administration pressured Ford Motor Company to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama’s bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.

59) Dismissed charges of voter intimidation, despite video evidence

In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election. In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges. In July 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testifiedbefore the Commission on Civil Rights that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.

60) Falsely claimed to support the second amendment

Although Obama stated, “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,” the National Rifle Association gave Obama a rating of ‘F’ based on his voting record.

61) Nominated a communist who said 9-11 was an inside job

In September 2009, Obama’s green czar Van Jones resigned after it was reported that he was a self-described “communist” and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks.

62) Falsely said he would not raise taxes on the poor and middle class

On September 12, 2008, Obama promised, “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” However, less than three months into his Presidency, he broke that promise when he raised the cigarette tax. Studies show that poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people.

63) Falsely said he wanted to simplify the tax code, when he actually wanted to make it more complex

Although Obama said that he wanted to simplify the tax code, his proposals would actually add thousands of pages to the tax code.

64) Oversaw some of the world’s worst increases in corruption

In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso.

65) Falsely said “This is the most transparent administration in history.”

In February 2013, Obama said, “This is the most transparent administration in history”

However, that same month, ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who covered Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama, said “The president’s day-to-day policy development… is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.”

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency.

Also, this list contains a huge number of things that Obama has done which contradict his statement.

66) Falsely claimed he would wait five days before signing bills

Although Obama had promised to wait five days before signing all non-emergency bills, he broke that promise at least 10 times during his first three months in office.

67) Falsely claimed stimulus spending would be transparent

Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status.

68) Announced plans to send military to Australia

In November 2011, Obama announced that he would send 2,500 Marines to Australia.

69) Falsely promised to accept public campaign financing and spending limits

During the 2008 campaign, Obama broke his promise to accept public campaign financing and the spending limits that came with it.

70) Tried to silence video on YouTube

In June 2011, Obama asked a Jewish singing group to remove its video from the internet.

71) Rejected international help to clean up BP oil spill

After the BP oil spill, Obama rejected offers of cleanup help from Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

72) Falsely said he opposed government waste, when he actually loves it

On September 22, 2008, Obama said, “I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it’s there… We will fire government managers who aren’t getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government… The only way we can do all this without leaving our children with an even larger debt is if Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends.” However, Citizens Against Government Waste gave Obama a 2007 rating of only 10%, and a lifetime rating of only 18%.

73) Nominated past frequent user of illegal drugs to keep illegal drugs out of schools

In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about Jenning’s own past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography.

74) Avoids firing aides who owe back taxes

In January 2012, it was reported that 36 Obama aides owed a combined total of $833,000 in back taxes.

75) Used Abbott and Costello style economics as a basis for national policy

In 2010, Obama gave $16.3 million to First Solar, a company that manufactures solar panels, so the company could sell solar panels to itself.

76) Sent U.S. troops to Africa

Obama sent U.S. troops to Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

77) Made secret plans for his second term

In March 2012, when Obama was talking to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and did not know that the microphone was turned on, Obama stated, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space… This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

78) Holds double standard for people who use crude and vulgar language toward women

Concerned Women for America accused Obama of hypocrisy after Obama criticized Rush Limbaugh for using crude and vulgar language to describe Sandra Fluke, but Obama did not criticize Bill Maher (who had donated one million dollars to an Obama PAC) for using the same kind of crude and vulgar language to describe Sarah Palin.

79) Illegally gave Obamacare exemptions to unions that supported the passage of Obamacare

Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare. Many of these organizations were unions that had supported the passage of Obamacare, but now wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.

In addition, these exemptions are illegal, because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.

The Washington Times wrote of this:

“Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.”

“The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.”

“More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.”

80) Defended Bush administration’s unconstitutional, unwarranted use of GPS device

In January 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration for having put a GPS tracking device on someone’s car without having a warrant, the Obama administration opposed the court ruling

81) Opposes newspapers reporting the news

Obama spokesman Jay Carney criticized the Los Angeles Times for publishing photographs of U.S. soldiers posing with corpses in Afghanistan.

82) Supported Bush administration for fining CBS for showing Janet Jackson’s breast

Obama came out in favor of the FCC’s fining of the CBS TV network $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl.

83) Allowed campaign contributors to bring lobbyists into White House

In April 2012, the New York Times reported, “Although Mr. Obama has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House…”

84) Falsely said that criminal background checks constituted “racial discrimination”

In 2012, the Obama administration accused Pepsico of “race discrimination” because it used criminal background checks to screen out job applicants.

85) Was cited by nine states for committing 21 illegal acts

Attorneys General from nine states issued a report, titled “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law,” which cited 21 illegal acts which had been committed by the Obama administration.

86) Tried to seize hotel because some of its customers had used illegal drugs

The Obama administration tried to seize a mom-and-pop bed-and-breakfast because some if its guests had used illegal drugs.

87) Falsely said his campaign was not funded by large donors

Although Obama has received many large campaign donations from corporate executives and Hollywood celebrities, his spokesperson said that his campaign was funded “not from huge donors at all.”

88) Holds double standard for subsidizing solar power companies

Although Obama gave taxpayer money to numerous American solar power companies, he placed a 30% tariffon solar panels imported from China, because he was against the Chinese government giving subsidies to its own companies.

89) Tried to create an administration full of tax cheaters

Obama nominated tax cheater Tom Daschle to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. After Daschle said he didn’t want the job, Obama then nominated tax cheater Kathleen Sebelius for the same position. Obama nominated tax cheater Nancy Killefer to be his administration’s Chief Performance Officer. Obama nominated tax cheater Hilda Solis to be the Secretary of Labor. Obama nominated tax cheater Ron Kirk be the White House Chief Trade Representative.

90) Hired a Communications Director who admires a mass murderer

Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House Communications Director, said that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese dictator who murdered tens of millions of innocent civilians.

91) Tried to replace science with political correctness

In July 2010, Charles Bolden, the administrator of NASA, said that Obama had told him that the primary purpose of NASA was “to reach out to the Muslim world.”

92) Made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess

In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess.

In January 2013, a federal appeals court ruled that Obama’s appointments had violated the Constitution.

In May 2013, a second federal appeals court also ruled that Obama’s appointments had violated the Constitution.

In July 2013, a third federal appeals court also ruled that Obama’s appointments had violated the Constitution.

93) Said the health insurance mandate was not a tax, but later told the Supreme Court that it was

Before Obama’s health care reform was passed, he said that the mandate was not a tax. However, after it was passed, the Obama administration argued in front of the Supreme Court that the mandate really was a tax.

94 ) Lied about being his “brother’s keeper”

Although Barack Obama likes to cite the Bible phrase “We are our brother’s keeper,” when his real life poverty stricken brother George Obama needed $1,000 for health care bills, Barack Obama refused to pay it, so conservative author Dinesh D’Souza paid it.

95) Punishes hospitals for saving the lives of patients with heart disease

Obama’s health care reform contains a provision that reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates. Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said of this, “Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates. So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?”

96) Supports guns for himself and his wife, but opposes them for everyone else

On January 10, 2013, President Obama signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives.

However, in 2004, when Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers.

97) Falsely claimed that he “cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011″

On “Meet the Press” on December 30, 2012, Obama said:

“I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011″

In reality, spending during that time period was not cut at all, and was actually increased by $147 billion.

98) Practices environmental hypocrisy

In May 2008, Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

However, just one week later, Obama was photographed exiting an SUV.

In addition, Obama keeps the White House thermostat turned up so high that David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Environmentalists criticized Obama for eating Wagyu beef, which was called “the Hummer of beef.”

Obama had a chef fly round trip from St. Louis to Washington D.C. so he could make Obama’s favorite pizza.

99) Pressured public schools to replace Catcher in the Rye with a book on window insulation

The Huffington Post reported that Obama’s education policies

“are increasingly worrying English-lovers and English teachers, who feel they must replace literary greats like The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye with Common Core-suggested ‘exemplars,’ like the Environmental Protection Agency’s Recommended Levels of Insulation.”

100) Approved giving 20 F-16 fighter jets to a Sharia dictatorship

Obama approved giving 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt, which is a Sharia dictatorship.

101) Falsely claimed that his “Cash for Clunkers” program would help the environment

Although Obama claimed that his “Cash for Clunkers” program would help the environment, it actually causednet harm to the environment. Because the program required cars to be shredded instead of recycled, itwasted 24 million barrels of oil. Many of the cars that were destroyed were in perfectly good condition. Because the program’s minimum requirement for so-called “fuel efficiency” was only 22 mpg, the reduction in pollution was negligible.

102) Violated the very same campaign finance laws that he claims to support

In January 2013, it was reported that Obama’s campaign had been fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violating campaign finance laws.

103) Lied about how he had answered a questionnaire on gun control

In 1996, when Obama was answering a questionnaire on his political views, one of the questions was “Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

Obama’s answer to the question was “Yes.”

However, in 2008, Obama said “My writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire.”

However, ABC News later reported that the questionnaire “appears to have Obama’s handwriting.”

104) Falsely claimed that his 2013 inauguration was not funded by lobbyists

Although Obama claimed that his 2013 inauguration was not funded by lobbyists, its sponsors had actually spent $160 million on lobbying during Obama’s first presidential term.

105) Encouraged medical device manufacturers to lay off employees

In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers haveannounced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).

In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts.

106) Encouraged employers to switch their employees from full time to part time

The New York Times reported that Obamacare

“sharply penalizes full-time employment in favor of part-time employment.”

In response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, some restaurants have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including some franchises of Olive Garden, Red Lobster,Wendy’s, Taco Bell, White Castle, and Fatburger.

Community College of Allegheny County switched 200 professors and 200 other employees from full time to part time in response to Obamacare. Clint Benjamin, an English professor at Community College of Allegheny County, said that this would reduce his own monthly pay by $600.

Also in response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, other colleges have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including Florida’s Palm Beach State College, Ohio’s Youngstown State University, and New Jersey’s Kean University.

In Virginia, thousands of government employees had their hours reduced because of Obamacare.

The Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh reduced the hours of 48 of its employees in response to Obamacare.

Regal Entertainment Group, the largest chain of movie theaters in the country, announced that it would be switching thousands of its employees from full time to part time in response to the Obamacare mandate.

Utah’s Granite School District reduced the hours of 1,200 of its employees in response to Obamacare.

In response to Obamacare, many Wal-Mart stores have stopped hiring full time workers.

In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will

“destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class… the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation.”

107) Broke his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term

On February 23, 2009, Obama said “Today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” Obama broke that promise.

108) Had Freedom of Information Act record worse than Bush’s

In September 2012, it was reported that when it came to honoring requests under the Freedom of Information Act, Obama’s record was worse than that of George W. Bush.

109) Supports installation of hidden cameras on private property without a search warrant

In October 2012, Obama’s Justice Department argued in favor of installing hidden cameras on private property without a search warrant.

110) Used “stimulus” money to pay people to play cards, board games, and video games

In October 2012, it was reported that LG Chem, a lithium-ion battery plant in Holland, Michigan, was using money from Obama’s “stimulus” to pay its employees to play cards, board games, and video games.

111) Spent half a million tax dollars on “Prom Week” video game

In 2012, the Obama administration spent $516,000 on a video game called “Prom Week.”

112) Hypocritically pays his female employees less than his male employees

Although Obama claims to support equal pay for men and women, his own adminstration pays its female employees 18% less than its male employees.

113) Falsely said that Romney’s pension was bigger than his own

During a debate in October 2012, Obama falsely stated that Mitt Romney’s pension was bigger than his own.

114) Has a double standard for investing in China and the Cayman Islands

Although Obama criticized Mitt Romney for having investments in China and the Cayman Islands, Obamahimself has investments in both of those places.

115) Spent $27 million on “ineffective” pottery classes in Morocco

Obama spent $27 million on pottery classes in Morocco. The class used an American teacher, but the translator who was hired did not actually know how to speak English fluently, and made many mistakes. The instructor often did not bring the right materials to class. The dyes and clays that the instructor did use were not available in Morocco, which prevented the students from being able to copy what they had learned. It was concluded that the classes were “ineffective.”

116) Caused large amounts of perfectly good food to be thrown into the garbage

In one year, Obama’s new school lunch program caused the schools in Lake County, Florida, to throw away$75,000 of perfectly good fruits and vegetables.

117) Accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign citizens

During an experiment, a non-U.S. citizen attempted to make two $5 donations to both Obama’s campaign website and Mitt Romney’s campaign website. While the Romney website rejected both donations, the Obama website accepted them.

118) Labels opponents of TSA sexual harassment as “domestic extremists”

The Obama administration labels anyone who objects to the TSA’s sexual harassment as a “domestic extremist.”

119) Lied about the Benghazi attack

In September 2012, after four U.S. citizens were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration falsely said that the attack was a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim video at YouTube.

CBS News reported that although it was obviously a terrorist attack, it took an entire week before the Obama administration was willing to acknowledge it as such.

The Washington Post reported that Obama had falsely said that he had called it a terrorist attack from the very start.

After the attack began, someone (there is a debate over who this someone was) ordered the nearby U.S. military to “stand down,”, i.e., not offer any assistance. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. Obama later falsely claimed that the “stand down” order had not been made.

Although the Obama administration made a dozen revisions to its talking points on this incident, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely stated that only a “single adjustment” had been made, and that it simply involved changing the wording of “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.” ABC News published a complete list of all the changes to the talking points, which can be read here.

Among the changes was the deletion of this entire paragraph:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, played a key role in the editing of the talking points. But instead of firing her for this, Obama offered her a promotion.

120) Paid a train carrying biofuel to cross the U.S.-Canadian border 24 times without unloading

As part of Obama’s “green energy” program, Obama used tax money to pay for a train full of biofuel to cross the U.S.-Canadian border 24 times without unloading its cargo.

121) Falsely said that “we got back every dime” of the bailout

In October 2012, Obama said that “we got back every dime” of the bailout. However, at the same time, the Congressional Budget Office that said there was still $24 billion that had not been paid back.

122) Spent $50,000 of taxpayer money on a George S. Patton impersonator

In the summer of 2011, the Obama administration spent $50,000 on a George S. Patton impersonator

123) Spent $75,000 of taxpayer money on a bicycle

The Obama administration spent $75,000 of taxpayer money on a bicycle.

124) Complained to YouTube about an anti-Muslim video

In September 2012, the Obama administration phoned YouTube to complain about an anti-Muslim video.

Ben Wizner of the ACLU said that of this, “It does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship.”

Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of this, “I am actually kind of distressed by this… Even though there are all these great quotes from inside the White House saying they support free speech….by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don’t want them to take it down, when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect.”

125) Falsely said that Fast and Furious was started when Bush was President

In September 2012, Obama said that Fast and Furious had “begun under the previous administration.” In reality, Fast and Furious began in October 2009.

126) Is a “war criminal” who is “more aggressive, more illegal worldwide” than Bush, according to Ralph Nader

In September 2012, Ralph Nader said that Obama was a “war criminal” who was “more aggressive, more illegal worldwide” than George W. Bush.

127) Illegally refused to fire Kathleen Sebelius after she violated campaign finance laws

In February 2012, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, violated campaign finance laws. Although federal law required Obama to fire Sebelius for her illegal activity, he refused to do so.

128) Supports policies that hurt small businesses

In September 2012, a survey of small business owners showed that 69% of them said that Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt small businesses. 55% said that they would not start a business under the current environment.

129) Spent $102,000 per year of taxpayer money on a “dog handler”

In September 2012, it was reported that Obama spent $102,000 of taxpayer money each year on a “dog handler.”

130) Refused to fire federal employee who sent email to 17,000 people praising terrorist who wanted to destroy U.S.

In 2012, an employee of Obama’s administration sent an email to more than 17,000 federal employees which praised Che Guevara, a terrorist who had wanted to destroy the U.S. Obama refused to fire the employee.

131) Called Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence” instead of “Islamic terrorism”

After Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and murdered 13 people on U.S. soil, instead of referring to it as “Islamic terrorism,” Obama said that it was “workplace violence.”

132) Falsely said that switching to electronic medical records would make health care cheaper

Although Obama claimed that switching to electronic record keeping as part of Obamacare would make health care cheaper, it actually made it more expensive.

133) Spent $495,000 of “stimulus” money for ads on MSNBC

Obama spent $495,000 of “stimulus” money for commercials on MSNBC.

134) Lied about the cost of federal regulations

In September 2012, it was reported that the cost of federal regulations to citizens and business owners was more than 20 times as much as what Obama had said it was.

135) Broke his promise to pass immigration bill, and then lied about why he broke it

In 2008, Obama promised that he would pass an immigration bill during his first year in office. He broke that promise. He then blamed this on Republicans, even though both the House and Senate were controlled byDemocrats during Obama’s first year.

136) Made it much harder for startups to raise capital and create jobs

In July 2010, Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act. The Wall St. Journal wrote of this:

“Senator Chris Dodd’s 1,400-page financial reform bill contains many economic land mines, and here’s one of the worst: Provisions that would make it harder for business start-ups to raise seed capital.”

“Currently, wealthy individuals who want to invest directly in a new business can do so with minimum interference from regulators. The law requires only that the investor be “accredited” by meeting thresholds for net worth ($1 million) or income ($250,000). Entrepreneurs depend on these “angel” investors, since many new businesses lack the collateral for bank loans and are too small to interest venture capitalists. “

“Amazon, Yahoo, Google and Facebook all benefited from angel investors, who typically target companies under five years old. According to a 2009 Kaufman Foundation study, such firms are less than 1% of all companies yet generate about 10% of new jobs. Between 1980 and 2005, companies less than five years old accounted for all net job growth in the U.S. In 2008, angels invested some $19 billion in more than 55,000 companies. “

“Mr. Dodd’s bill would change all this for the worse. Most preposterously, it would require that start-ups seeking angel investments file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and endure a 120-day review. Rare is the new company that doesn’t need immediate access to the capital it raises, and a four-month delay is the kind of rule popular in banana republics that create few new businesses. “

“The Dodd bill also raises the net worth and income thresholds to $2.3 million and $450,000, respectively. The Angel Capital Association, a trade group, estimates that these provisions would disqualify about 77% of current accredited investors.”

137) Paid six figure salaries to federal employees so they could watch pornography all day long

In April 2010, ABC News reported:

“On a day when President Obama argued for more government regulation over the financial industry, a new government report reveals that some high-level regulators have spent more time looking at porn than policing Wall Street. “

“The Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be the sheriff of the financial industry, looking for financial crimes like Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. But the new report, obtained by ABC News, says senior employees of the SEC spent hours on the commission’s computers looking at sites like naughty.com, skankwire, youporn, and others. “

“The investigation, which was conducted by the SEC’s internal watchdog at the request of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, found 31 serious offenders over the past two and a half years. Seventeen of the offenders were senior SEC officers with salaries ranging from $100,000 to $222,000 per year. “

“Eight Hours a Day Spent on Porn Sites”

“One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices. “

“An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.”

“Another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.”

138) Spent tax dollars on a “mindreader”

Obama used taxpayer money to hire a “mindreader.”

139) Used tax dollars to build a million dollar bus stop

Obama spent federal tax dollars to pay for part of the cost of a million dollar bus stop which opened in Arlington, Virginia in March 2013. Despite its huge cost, the bus stop can only accommodate 15 people, and does not even protect them from the wind and rain.

140) Filed a lawsuit against a non-existent “monopoly” in the beer industry

Although the number of breweries in the U.S. increased from 89 to 2,336 between 1978 and 2013, the Obama administration sued Anheuser-Busch InBev, which already owned half of Mexico’s Grupo Modelo, to prevent if from buying the other half, despite the fact that there were no laws on the books against such a purchase. The Obama administration’s so-called justification for this lawsuit against a law abiding company was that the company might, possibly, maybe, break some unspecified law, at some unspecified, distant point in the future.

141) Falsely said the sequester would cause janitors to take a pay cut

In February 2013, while talking about the sequester, Obama said

“The folks who are cleaning the floors at the Capitol — now that Congress has left, somebody is going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage — they’re going to have less pay… The janitors, the security guards, they just got a pay cut, and they’ve got to figure out how to manage that. That’s real.”

CBS News reported that Obama’s statement was false.

142) Falsely said that he goes skeet shooting “all the time”

At the beginning of Obama’s second term, he said that he goes skeet shooting “all the time.” However, a witness said that when he saw Obama go skeet shooting, Obama acted as if he had never fired a gun before, that he appeared to be uncomfortable with a gun, and that he only stayed for five minutes. In addition, during his first term, the media had never reported on his alleged skeet shooting, although it never failed to cover the more than100 rounds of golf that he played during his first term.

143) Gave special access to people who raised or donated $500,000

In February 2013, the New York Times reported that people who raised or donated at least $500,000 to Organizing for Action, a political group that supported Obama, would be given “the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.”

144) Said the deficit had gone down when it had actually gone up

In February 2013, Obama said that the federal deficit had gone down by $2.5 trillion since he had taken office. In reality, it had actually increased by $5.9 trillion during that time.

145) Refused to make available necessary tax forms to taxpayers

On February 21, 2013, CBS News reported that the Obama administration had not yet made available dozens of different tax forms that taxpayers would need in order to meet the legal deadline of April 15 for filing their taxes.

146) Nominated someone to be Secretary of the Treasury who had participated in “the biggest tax scam on record”

Obama nominated Jack Lew to be Secretary of the Treasury. Lew had previously invested in the Cayman Islands, which Obama had referred to as “the biggest tax scam on record.”

147) Adopted harmful new restrictions on prescription painkillers – even though the House had already voted against them

After the U.S. House voted against new restrictions on prescription painkillers, the Obama administrationignored the House’s vote, and adopted the new restrictions anyway. Dr. Lynn Webster, president-elect of the American Academy of Pain Medicine said of these new restrictions, “It will have an impact on a lot of patients who have been receiving them for some time for legitimate purposes.”

148) Rolled back union transparency rules

The Obama administration rolled back union transparency rules, which had been created so that union members could find out how their union was spending their union dues.

149) Tried to eliminate workers’ right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not to unionize

Obama supported the elimination of workers’ right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not to form a union

150) Gave “supervised release” to a convicted criminal who later went on to murder a nun

Obama gave “supervised release” to a convicted criminal, who then went on to murder a nun.

151) Falsely said that he did not propose the sequester

On October 22, 2012, Obama said, “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed.” However, on February 22, 2013, the Washington Post reported that “the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House” and that “Obama personally approved of the plan.”

152) Illegally refused to submit a budget on time during four of his first five years

The President is legally required to submit a budget by the first Monday in February. Obama broke this law during four of his first five years in office. Since 1921, no President had missed this deadline more than once.

153) Canceled White House tours for thousands of people so he could use the money to play golf with Tiger Woods

During the sequester in early 2013, the Obama administration said it would save $18,000 per week by cancelling all White house tours, despite the fact that thousands of people had planned their vacations far in advance. However, Obama had no problem with spending more than $1 million in tax money so he could go golfing with Tiger Woods for one weekend.

154) Falsely said the Newton shooter used a “fully automatic weapon”

In April 2013, four months after Adam Lanza murdered 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Obamafalsely stated that the shooter had used a “fully automatic weapon.”

155) Broke his own deadline for creating healthcare exchanges

Three years after Obama signed Obamacare, the New York Times reported that Obama would miss his own deadline for creating some of the insurance exchanges for small businesses.

156) Falsely said that surgeons get paid between $30,000 and $50,000 for amputating a leg

In August 2009, while trying to justify the passage of Obamacare, Obama stated

“Let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.”

The American College of Surgeons responded to this by saying

“President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.”

157) Falsely said that doctors perform unnecessary tonsillectomies to make more money
In July 2009, Obama said

“Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. So if … your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

“Now, that may be the right thing to do. But I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

The American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery responded by saying

“The AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President’s portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries. In many cases, tonsillectomy may be a more effective treatment, and less costly, than prolonged or repeated treatments for an infected throat.”

158) Purchased 2,717 mine resistant armor protected vehicles for use on civilian streets in the U.S.

In March 2013 it was reported that the Obama administration had purchased 2,717 mine resistant armor protected vehicles for use on civilian streets in the U.S.

159) Spends $277,050 per year for three professional calligraphists

In March 2013, it was reported that Obama was spending $277,050 of tax money per year for three professional calligraphists. It was also reported that cheap computer software could produce the exact same calligraphy for a tiny fraction of that cost.

160) Allowed 311,566 federal employees and retirees to get away with $3.5 billion in unpaid federal taxes

In 2011, Obama allowed 311,566 federal employees and retirees to get away with $3.5 billion in unpaid federal taxes.

161) Spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly on the job

Obama spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly on the job.

162) Fined UPS $40 million because some of its customers had used UPS to ship illegal drugs

In March 2013, Obama forced UPS to pay $40 million because some of its customers had used UPS to ship illegal drugs.

163) Added 20,000 extra pages to Obamacare without Congressional approval

After Obamacare was passed, Obama added 20,000 extra pages to it, even though those extra 20,000 pages had not been voted on by Congress.

164 ) Signed health care reform law whose own authors called it a “huge train wreck” that was “beyond comprehension”

U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), one of the authors of Obamacare, said of it, “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), another author of the law, said it was “beyond comprehension.”

165) Eliminated disclosure requirements for most federal employees in the executive and legislative branches

In April 2013, Obama eliminated the disclosure requirements for most federal employees in the executive and legislative branches.

166) Waited until after the 2012 election to release unpopular Obamacare rules

In April 2013, the New York Times reported:

… even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.

… the Obama administration didn’t want to release unpopular rules before the election.

Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned.

A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling… Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.

167) Made it easy for people to fraudulently collect $50,000 by falsely claiming to be “farmers”

In April 2013, the New York Times reported

the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate…

The deal… was fashioned in White House meetings… the $50,000 payouts to black farmers had proved a magnet for fraud.

the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie… Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims.

In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.

In Maple Hill, a struggling town in southeastern North Carolina, the number of people paid was nearly four times the total number of farms. More than one in nine African-American adults there received checks. In Little Rock, Ark., a confidential list of payments shows, 10 members of one extended family collected a total of $500,000, and dozens of other successful claimants shared addresses, phone numbers or close family connections.

In Arkansas, prosecutors rejected a test case against a Pine Bluff police officer who had admitted lying on his claim form.

in one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed, according to the former high-ranking agency official.

She cinched the claim, he said to a ripple of laughter, by asserting that her father had whispered on his deathbed, “I was discriminated against by U.S.D.A.”

168) Tried to rig federal auctions of radio spectrum space

In April 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration was trying to rig federal auctions of radio spectrum space in a manner that would favor Sprint and T-Mobile, and make it harder for AT&T and Verizon.

169) Put someone in jail for making an anti-Muslim video

In May 2013, Politico reported:

“Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws.”

“You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail today if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.”

“In the weeks after the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration claimed the terrorist assault had been the outgrowth of a demonstration against the Nakoula video. The administration ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the U.S. had nothing to do with it. In a speech at the United Nations around this time, the president declared — no doubt with Nakoula in mind — ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’”

“After Benghazi, the administration was evidently filled with a fierce resolve — to bring Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to justice. Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base: ‘We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.’”

“Lo and behold, Nakoula was brought in for questioning by five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight, eventually arrested and held without bond, and finally thrown into jail for a year. He sits in La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas right now, even as the deceptive spin that blamed his video for the Benghazi attack looks more egregious by the day.”

170) Oversaw IRS whose employees illegally targeted conservative groups

In May 2013, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had illegally targeted conservative groups for additional reviews. Organizations with the words “tea party” or “patriot” were singled out for harassment, such as requiring them to provide a list of donors, details about their internet postings on social networking websites, and information about their family members.

When this was first reported by the media in May 2013, Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that had conducted these illegal activities, claimed that only low level employees had known about it, and that no high level IRS officials had known about it. However, soon afterward, NPR reported that an Inspector General report showed that Lerner had been lying, and that she herself had actually been aware of it since June 29, 2011. Even worse, during March and April of 2012, Lerner herself had actually written such letters to fifteendifferent conservative groups. One of these letters can be read here.

While testifying in May 2013, Lerner said, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” However, afterward, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Washington Post reported that there was disagreement as to whether or not Lerner’s statement constituted a waiving of her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Soon afterward, she was placed on paid administrative leave.

The Washington Post reported that IRS officials at the IRS headquarters in Washington D.C. had sent such letters to conservatives groups. Reuters reported that higher level IRS officials had taken part in discussions about it as early as August 2011. However, 21 months later, on May 10, 2013, the Washington Post reportedthat President Obama had not done anything to investigate or fire the IRS employees who had engaged in this illegal harassment. As of May 14, 2013, none of the IRS employees who engaged in any of this illegal behavior had been disciplined, despite the fact that higher level IRS officials had known about their illegal behavior at least since August 2011.

On May 15, 2013, it was reported that Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner, had resigned. However, it was also reported that his assignment would have ended in early June anyway. He resigned – Obama did not fire him.

The IRS gave out confidential information about conservative groups. ProPublica wrote:

“The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year.”

“In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public.”

“No unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”

President Obama either lied about when he first knew about this – or was too busy playing golf and attending fundraisers to read the memos that were sent to him. The Daily Caller wrote:

“White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a press conference Tuesday that the White House was notified about the IRS targeting tea party groups ‘several weeks ago.’ This comes a day after President Obama said he found out about it from news reports on Friday of last week.”

“During a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, President Obama was asked about the IRS scandal. He responded, ‘I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.’

“However, Carney said Tuesday that first a report had to be compiled by the IRS’s inspector general and then when it was completed, it was passed on to the administration.”

“‘A notification is appropriate and routine and that is what happened and that happened several weeks ago,’ Carney said.”

When Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for non-profit status, after waiting 16 months, it got no response. But when it reapplied with a liberal sounding name, it got approval in just three weeks. Yahoo wrote:

“In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.”

“When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.”

“The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.”

Politico reported:

“The same Internal Revenue Service office that singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny also challenged Israel-related organizations, at least one of which filed suit over the agency’s handling of its application for tax-exempt status.”

“The trouble for the Israel-focused groups seems to have had different origins than that experienced by conservative groups, but at times the effort seems to have been equally ham-handed.”

The IRS asked conservative groups what books they were reading.

Although the IRS went 18 months or longer without responding to conservative organizations’ applications, the IRS demanded that these same organizations answer the IRS’s intrusive questions within a few weeks.

After the Waco Tea Party sent an application to the IRS, the IRS waited 19 months to respond. In its response, the IRS asked for printouts of its web page and social networking sites, copies of all of its newsletters, bulletins and fliers, and copies of all stories written about it. The IRS also asked for transcripts of its radio interviews.

As one example of how the IRS treated conservative organizations differently from liberal ones, Politicoreported:

“Chris Littleton, one of the co-founders of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, said the group got a grilling from the IRS when it submitted its application, in letters the group has posted on its website. The IRS also gave him so much grief when he tried to apply for tax-exempt status for another group, American Junto, that ‘we just gave up on it,’ he said.”

“But when he submitted an application for a third group — Ohioans for Health Care Freedom, now renamed Ohio Rising — ‘it went through just fine,’ Littleton said. ‘They never asked a single set of questions.’”

After the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots sent in their application, it took two years for the IRS to respond. The IRS response included 35 questions. When the group’s cofounder called the IRS, the IRS agent claimed that he had their group’s file right in front of him. But when the group’s confounder asked the IRS agent a question, the IRS agent asked, “What’s your group’s name again?”

Tea Party groups who spoke with each other said they were all getting the same questions from the IRS.

The Washington Post reported that some IRS employees were “ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors, and blind to the appearance of impropriety.”

In 2012, the IRS leaked confidential information about Mitt Romney to the co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee.

For a 27 month period that began in February 2010, the IRS gave exactly zero approvals to Tea Party organizations that had sent in applications. During that same time period, numerous liberal organizations with names including words such as “progress” or “progressive” did get approval.

After True the Vote, a conservative organization which was founded by Catherine Engelbrecht, sent its application to the IRS, the IRS went three years without responding. During that three year period, Engelbrecht and her family’s small manufacturing business were audited by the IRS, and were investigated by OSHA, the ATF, and the FBI.

Democratic U.S. Senators pressured the IRS to target conservative groups. In May 2013, U.S. News & World Report wrote:

“Over the last three years, Democratic senators repeatedly and publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very activities that they are only now condemning today. At the same time, Republicans repeatedly and publicly warned against this abuse of government power and pointed to a series of red flags that strongly suggested conservative political organizations were being targeted by the IRS. Those warnings were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress.”

“From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted.”

In order to get approval, the IRS required members of Coalition for Life of Iowa, a pro-life organization, to sign a promise to avoid protesting in front of Planned Parenthood.

The IRS asked Christian Voices for Life, a pro-life organization, questions about its prayer vigils.

According to the official White House visitor’s log, during Obama’s first four years as President, IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman made 157 visits to the White House. This is more visits to the White House – by a very large margin – than any other cabinet member during Obama’s first term. By comparison, during the four years that Mark Everson was IRS commissioner when Bush was president, Everson made only one visit to the White House.

Shulman donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004.

During Congressional testimony that had taken place in March 2012, Shulman falsely said that the IRS had not targeted conservative groups.

Shulman’s wife, Susan L. Anderson, is the senior program advisor for Public Campaign, a liberal organization. The Daily Caller wrote of this group:

Public Campaign receives “major funding” from the pro-Obamacare alliance Health Care for America NOW!, which is comprised of the labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the progressive activist organization Move On, among others.

Public Campaign also receives funding from the liberal Ford Foundation, the Common Cause Education Fund, and Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation, among other foundations and private donors.

Stephen Seok was one of the IRS agents who wrote threatening letters to conservative groups. After doing so, he was given a promotion.

In June 2013, it was reported that two IRS employees had violated government ethics rules at a 2010 conference when they received $1,100 in free food and other items. One of them was Fred Schindler, the director of implementation oversight at the IRS Affordable Care Act office. The other was Donald Toda, a California-based employee. Obama did not fire them. Instead, he gave both of them paid leave. By comparison, in 1981, President Reagan fired 11,359 air-traffic controllers who had been illegally striking.

In June 2013, it was reported that The National Organization for Marriage, a conservative organization, hadforensic evidence which proved that its donors’ private information had been illegally leaked by the IRS. The IRS employee(s) who illegally leaked this private information could get five years in prison.

In July 2013, it was reported that Obama had met with a key IRS official who was involved in the targeting just two days before the key official had told his colleagues how to target tea party groups. The Daily Callerreported:

The Obama appointee implicated in congressional testimony in the IRS targeting scandal met with President Obama in the White House two days before offering his colleagues a new set of advice on how to scrutinize tea party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, who was named in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS agent Carter Hull as one of his supervisors in the improper targeting of conservative groups, met with Obama in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on April 23, 2012. Wilkins’ boss, then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 24, 2012, according to White House visitor logs.

On April 25, 2012, Wilkins’ office sent the exempt organizations determinations unit “additional comments on the draft guidance” for approving or denying tea party tax-exempt applications, according to the IRS inspector general’s report.

Jon Stewart said of this:

“Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama. Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their f***ing heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents.”

Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, said of this:

“Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets. With the recent push to grant federal agencies broad new powers to mandate donor disclosure for advocacy groups on both the left and the right, there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again.”

171) Spent $402,721 on underwear that detects the presence of cigarette smoke

In May 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had spent $402,721 on underwear that detects the presence of cigarette smoke.

172) Rewarded one of his biggest campaign fundraisers by nominating him for the ambassadorship to Canada

In April 2013, it was reported that Obama had nominated Bruce Heyman to be the ambassador to Canada. During Obama’s election campaign, Heyman had raised more than $1 million for Obama.

173) Hired a retarded man to sell illegal drugs and guns, and then arrested him for doing so

In April 2013, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported:

“ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.”

“For more than six months, federal agents relied on Chauncey Wright to promote ‘Fearless Distributing’ by handing out fliers as he rode his bike around town recommending the store to friends, family and strangers, according to federal prosecutors and family members.”

“Wright, unaware that the store was an undercover operation being run by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also stocked shelves with shoes, clothing, drug paraphernalia and auto parts, according to his family.”

“Once authorities shut down the operation, they charged the 28-year-old man with federal gun and drug counts.”

“Wright’s IQ measures in the 50s, about half of a normal IQ, according to those familiar with him. Wright’s score is classified as mildly or moderately disabled, depending on the IQ scale used.”

174) Secretly obtained phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors

In May 2013, Associated Press reported:

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

Soon afterward, it was reported that obtaining these phone records had required approval from Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General.

This has had a very dangerous and harmful effect on the media’s ability to report the news. In June 2013, Gary Pruitt, the president and chief executive of Associated Press said:

“Some longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking with us… In some cases, government employees we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone. Others are reluctant to meet in person … This chilling effect on newsgathering is not just limited to AP… Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me that it has intimidated both official and nonofficial sources from speaking to them as well.”

175) Asked contractors to disclose their political donations before bidding on government contracts

In April 2011, Obama asked contractors to disclose their political donations before bidding on government contracts.

176) Tried to deport German family that had fled Germany over Hitler’s ban on homeschooling

In Germany in 1938, Adolf Hitler outlawed homeschooling. He said “Give me a child when he’s seven and he’s mine forever.”

Hitler’s ban on homeschooling is still in effect today. In 2006, Katharina Plett was arrested for homeschooling her own children. Her husband and their children fled the country. In 2008, Juergen and Rosemary Dudek were sentenced to 90 days in jail for homeschooling their own children.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike and their homeschooled children fled Germany after the police showed up at their house to enforce Germany’s ban on homeschooling. They came to the United States in 2010 and were granted political asylum, which gave them legal permission to live in the U.S. as political refugees However, in March 2013, the Obama administration argued in federal court in favor of deporting them and sending them back to Germany. This means that Obama does not consider them to be political refugees, and that he does not consider Germany’s policy of jailing homeschooling parents to be a form of persecution.

177) Said, “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends”

Obama said (the bolding is mine)

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think it’s going to be harder. And that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.”

This is a rare instance of a promise that Obama has actually kept instead of broken. A huge number of the things on this list can be explained by that one simple sentence that Obama said.

178) Falsely accused a law abiding news reporter of being “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation

James Rosen is a law abiding reporter for Fox News. However, the Obama administration falsely labeled him as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation when it applied for a warrant to read his emails.

The New York Times wrote of this:

With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.

Leak investigations usually focus on the source, not the reporter. But, in this case, federal prosecutors also asked a federal judge for permission to examine Mr. Rosen’s personal e-mails, arguing that “there is probable cause to believe” Mr. Rosen is “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in the leak.

Though Mr. Rosen was not charged, the F.B.I. request for his e-mail account was granted secretly in late May 2010. The government was allowed to rummage through Mr. Rosen’s e-mails for at least 30 days.

Michael Clemente, the executive vice president of Fox News, said on Monday that it was “downright chilling” that Mr. Rosen “was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter.” Bruce Brown, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, added on Tuesday that treating “routine news-gathering efforts as evidence of criminality is extremely troubling and corrodes time-honored understandings between the public and the government about the role of the free press.”

Obama administration officials often talk about the balance between protecting secrets and protecting the constitutional rights of a free press. Accusing a reporter of being a “co-conspirator”… shows a heavy tilt toward secrecy and insufficient concern about a free press.

The Washington Post wrote of this:

The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of.

To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based. Guns? Privacy? Due process? Equal protection? If you can’t speak out, you can’t defend those rights, either.

Beyond that, the administration’s actions shatter the president’s credibility and discourage allies who would otherwise defend the administration against bogus accusations such as those involving the Benghazi “talking points.” If the administration is spying on reporters and accusing them of criminality just for asking questions — well, who knows what else this crowd is capable of doing?

My Post colleague Ann E. Marimow, who broke the Rosen story, obtained the affidavit by FBI agent Reginald Reyes seeking access to Rosen’s private e-mails. In the affidavit, Reyes stated that “there is probable cause to believe that the reporter has committed or is committing a violation” of the law against national security leaks. The affidavit detailed how the FBI had monitored Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department and tracked his various phone calls with the suspected leaker, analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

Rosen’s supposed crime? Reyes got his evidence from an e-mail from the reporter: “I want to report authoritatively, and ahead of my competitors, on new initiatives or shifts in U.S. policy, events on the ground in [North Korea], what intelligence is picking up, etc. . . . I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses. . . . In short: Let’s break some news, and expose muddle-headed policy when we see it, or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.”

That is indeed compelling evidence — of good journalism.

Obama is establishing an ominous precedent.

179) Asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate himself for lying under oath

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath. He said that he had nothing to do with monitoring the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen. But it turns out that it was Holder’s own signature on the search warrant.

Even the liberal Huffington Post said that Holder should be fired over this.

Holder could get five years in prison.

So, did President Obama fire Holder?

Of course not!

Instead, Obama asked that Holder be investigated – not by an independent investigating committee – but by Holder himself!

I can see it now…

Obama: “Did you lie?”

Holder: “No.”

Obama: “OK. That’s good enough for me. You’re cleared of any wrongdoing.”

180) Used Obamacare to illegally give the IRS additional powers without approval from Congress

In May 2013 the Washington Post wrote:

The law allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set up federal health exchanges in the holdout states. But the statute makes no mention of the IRS providing credits and subsidies through federal exchanges.

The IRS resolved this conundrum by denying its existence. In a May 2012 regulatory ruling, it asserted its own right to provide credits outside the state exchanges as the reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. But the language of the law is not ambiguous. And health scholars Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, in an exhaustive recent analysis, find no justification for the IRS’s ruling in the legislative history of Obamacare. “The statute,” they argue, “and the lack of any support for the IRS rule in the legislative record put defenders of the IRS rule in the awkward position of arguing that it was so obviously Congress’ intent to offer tax credits in federal exchanges that despite a year of debate over the PPACA, it never occurred to anyone to express that intent out loud. A better explanation is that the PPACA’s authors miscalculated when they assumed states would establish exchanges.”

So: The IRS seized the authority to spend about $800 billion over 10 years on benefits that were not authorized by Congress. And the current IRS scandal puts this decision in a new light. What was the role of politics in shaping this regulatory decision? What pressure was applied?

181) Used environmental regulations to shut down an ambulance while it was taking a patient to the hospital

In May 2013 the Washington Post reported:

A Wednesday shootout on the streets of Washington Highlands left a cop injured and a carjacking suspect dead. But before the suspect expired, he went on an unusual ambulance ride that involved moving him from one vehicle to another on the shoulder of Interstate 295. While this might appear to be another story of Fire and Emergency Medical Services dysfunction, the story is rather more complicated. As WUSA-TV explains, newer-model diesel engines are required by federal regulations to have emission-control features that, in some circumstances, require the motor to shut down for “regeneration” — a process in which the exhaust system burns off trapped soot. The need for regeneration can be unpredictable. The transfer to a second ambulance delayed 34-year-old Nathaniel McRae’s arrival at a hospital by seven minutes. FEMS insists the wait did not play a role in his death.

182) Had “a serious management problem” with his refusal to fire bad workers

A 2011 USA Today article on federal employees states:

“The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce.”

“White-collar federal workers have almost total job security after a few years on the job. Last year, the government fired none of its 3,000 meteorologists, 2,500 health insurance administrators, 1,000 optometrists, 800 historians or 500 industrial property managers.”

Wow! Those must be excellent workers, right?

Actually, no. The article also says:

“San Francisco State University management professor John Sullivan, an expert on employee turnover, says the low departure rates show a failure to release poor performers and those with obsolete skills. ‘Rather than indicating something positive, rates below 1% in the firing and layoff components would indicate a serious management problem,’ he says.”

A serious management problem?

So who exactly is the highest ranking manager of the federal government?

It’s President Obama.

183) Illegally solicited donations from health insurers

In May 2013, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from health insurers to help pay for Obamacare. Such soliciting is illegal.

184) Chose an economic advisor who wanted roads and bridges to be built by unqualified workers

Obama chose to have Robert Reich be his economic advisor. Regarding Obama’s stimulus, Reich said:

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people… And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be — criteria can be set so that they money does go to others… people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.”

185) Pressured unions to reduce the amount of health insurance coverage for their employees

In May 2013, the New York Times reported:

Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor’s office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past.

Expect to have your blood pressure checked or a prescription filled at a clinic at your office, rather than by your private doctor.

Then blame the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to their employees.

Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.

Tom Leibfried, a legislative director for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one of the unions whose plans are vulnerable to the tax, says the demands that workers pay more for their care is a perennial aspect of labor negotiations. “We’re very concerned about the hollowing out of benefits in general,” he said. “What the excise tax will do is just fuel that.”

186) Falsely said “We believe in the free market”

In June 2013, Obama said,

We don’t think that top-down solutions are the right way to go. We believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations. – See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-dont-want-tax-all-businesses-out-business#sthash.NDb17lc6.dpufWe believe in the free market. We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations.

“We believe in the free market.”

Obama was lying. The free market means that in the business world, it is the customers, not the government, who pick winners and losers. But this list contains a huge number of instances where Obama tried to use the government to pick winners and losers in the business world.

187) Falsely said “We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations”

In June 2013, Obama said, “We believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations.”

He lied. For example, after Obamacare was passed, Obama added 20,000extra pages of regulations to it.

188) Said Catholic schools are “divisive” but did not say the same thing about other religious schools

In June 2013, Obama said:

“If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

I can understand why a person might criticize religious schools in general – although I myself happen to think that religious schools are a superior alternative to public schools. But for Obama to single out one religion in particular as being divisive, while not saying the same thing about all religious schools in general, is a double standard.

189) Favored a new tax on Christmas trees so the money could be used to subsidize Christmas trees

In November 2011, Obama proposed a new tax on Christmas trees, so that the money could be used to subsidize Christmas trees. If this had been a Rube Goldberg cartoon it would have been funny. But to suggest it as an actual government policy is absurd.

190) Betrayed the people of the city that helped him launch his political career

As part of his effort to get Obamacare passed, Obama repeatedly promised that people could keep their current health insurance if they liked it.

More than any other city, the people of Chicago helped to get Obamacare passed. Chicago is where Obama chose to live when he first got into politics. The people there launched his political career and voted him into office.

And this is how Obama repays them. In May 2013, the Chicago Tribune reported:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to start reducing health insurance coverage next year for more than 30,000 retired city workers and begin shifting them to President Barack Obama’s new federal system.

The move is aimed at saving the city money

Once the phaseout is complete, those retired workers would have to pay for their own health insurance or get subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The city-subsidized coverage is particularly important to retired workers who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare

Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said the uncertainties of the Affordable Care Act and the state insurance exchanges they would create make the city’s plan hard to assess.

“This uncertainty will cause anxiety and fear for tens of thousands of seniors who gave their working lives to public service — men and women whose retirement savings are already under attack in the name of ‘pension reform.’” Bayer said.

191) Proposed military interventionism in Syria

In June 2013, Obama proposed that the U.S. get involved in Syria’s military conflicts.

192) Planned to use military snipers to shoot innocent lions and cheetahs in the wild

In June 2013, Obama was planning to use military snipers to shoot innocent lions and cheetahs in the wild.

However, after the media reported on his plans, Obama got embarrassed, and cancelled his plans.

193) Refused to fire or prosecute more than 1,000 IRS employees who illegally used their IRS credit cards for their own personal use

During Obama’s first term, more than 1,000 IRS employees illegally used their IRS credit cards for personal purchases, but Obama refused to fire or prosecute them.

194) Defended intelligence chief who lied under oath

In March 2013, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, falsely stated under oath that the NSA was not gathering data on millions of U.S. citizens. In June 2013, after it was reported that Clapper had lied under oath, Obama defended him, instead of firing him.

195) Had the Secret Service visit a law abiding citizen who had criticized his policies on Twitter

In April 2013, Obama sent the Secret Service to visit the home of Tom Francois, a law abiding citizen who had criticized Obama’s policies on Twitter.

The Secret Service admitted that Francois had not made any threats against Obama.

196) Had the IRS grant special, illegal favors for his brother’s so-called “charity”

In May 2013, the Daily Caller reported that the IRS had taken the “unprecedented” step of approving a non-profit application within just one month. In this particular case, the application was from the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a so-called “charity” which was headed by Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s brother.

In addition, the IRS illegally gave retroactive approval for the organization’s tax exempt status. Prior to getting this approval, the organization had illegally solicited tax deductible donations even though it did not have legal approval to do so.

197) Raised the interest rate on student loans to pay for Obamacare

Obamacare raised the interest rate on student loans from 5.3% to 6.8%. The money is used to fund Obamacare.

198) Refused to fire or prosecute 15 IRS agents who illegally seized the medical records of 10 million people

In March 2011, 15 IRS agents illegally seized the medical records of 10 million people without a warrant. Obama refused to fire or prosecute them.

199) Hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare

In June 2013, it was reported that Obama had hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.

200) Tried to reward wasteful IRS spending with an increase in funding

In June 2013, Danny Werfel, Obama’s new nominee to head the IRS, asked Congress for an increase in funding. At the same time, NPR reported on this waste of taxpayer money at an IRS conference:

Some of the 2,600 attendees received benefits, including baseball tickets and stays in presidential suites that normally cost $1,500 to $3,500 per night. In addition, 15 outside speakers were paid a total of $135,000 in fees, with one paid $17,000 to talk about “leadership through art,” the committee said.

Considering how the IRS wasted all that money on luxury hotel rooms and worthless speeches, Werfel really had some nerve asking Congress for more money. By proposing to reward wasteful spending with a budget increase, Werfel proved that he is incompetent to head the IRS. The fact that Obama nominated such an incompetent person does not surprise me one bit.

201) Illegally bypassed Congress to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate

As the Obamacare law was written, the employer mandate was to begin in January 2014. This is what the law said when it was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.

However, in July 2013, Obama delayed the employer mandate part of Obamacare until January 2015. Obama did this without approval from Congress.

For Obama to change a law that was passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress, is a violation of the Presidential oath that Obama took to uphold and defend the Constitution.

What Obama did here is an action of a dictator, not an action of a President whose power is limited by a written constitution.

If Obama can get away with this, then it sets a horribly dangerous precedent, and means that the President can arbitrarily make any change to any law that has been passed by Congress, without first getting approval from Congress.

202) Made it too hard for some doctors to continue their practices

In July 2013, ABC News reported that some doctors were shutting down their practices in response to Obamacare.

Dr. Robert WcWilliams, an obstetrician/gynecologist with more than 5,000 patients, said:

“It’s going to be run by bureaucrats – and it’s going to be run by politicians – who have no idea what is in your best interests, then I’m getting out.”

203) Falsely told Africans that contaminated water is a smaller problem than global warming

In July 2013, while speaking in Johannesburg, South Africa, President Obama said that global warming was “the biggest challenge we have environmentally” and that it was worse than “dirty water, dirty air.”

However, according to the World Health Organization, while global warming kills 140,000 people each year, air pollution kills 3 million people per year.

According to UNESCO, each year, contaminated water causes 4 billion cases of diarrhea, 120,000 cases of cholera, 300 million cases of malaria, 12 million cases of typhoid, 6 million cases of trachoma, 200 million cases of schistosomiesis, and more than 1 billion incidents of intestinal parasites.

You know what’s worse than global warming? How about living your entire life without ever having access to atoilet?

The World Health Organization says that dirty water is “the leading cause of disease and death around the world.”

That Obama would downplay these problems shows how scientifically illiterate he is.

That he would do so while giving a speech in Africa, which has the highest rate of water borne illness of any continent, shows how thoughtless and insensitive he is.

204) Spent $630,000 to get more Facebook “likes”

In July 2013, it was reported that Obama had spent $630,000 of taxpayers’ money in order to get more Facebook “likes.”

205) Declared that hacking was an act of war, then hacked the EU

In 2011, the Obama administration issued a statement which said that when one country hacked another country’s computers, the hacking constituted an “act of war.”

In July 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had hacked computers which were owned by the European Union.

206) Said “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”

In Florida, after a school security camera showed Trayvon Martin marking graffiti, a search of his backpack showed that it contained 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, including silver wedding rings, and earrings with diamonds. The backpack also had a screwdriver, which is often used as a tool by burglars. Martin said that the jewelry belonged to a friend, but refused to say who that friend was.

Why would a teenage boy bring a backpack full of silver wedding rings and diamond earrings to school? Do Martin’s millions of defenders really think that he was not a burglar?

The fact that Martin was in possession of stolen jewelry at school is perfectly in line with George Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting suspiciously. And there had been quite a few burglaries in the area recently.

Also on the 911 call, Zimmerman had said that Martin was acting as if he was on drugs. Martin’s autopsy showed that there was THC in his system. And while other parts of marijuana can stay in the system for weeks after it’s smoked, the THC only stays in the person’s system for a few hours. Therefore, Martin was indeed high when Zimmerman saw him.

So Trayvon Martin was a burglar, used illegal drugs, broke Zimmerman’s nose, and smashed Zimmerman’s head against the concrete.

And how does Obama respond to all of this?

Obama said:

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

207) Falsely said that Secretary of State John Kerry had not been on his yacht during the regime change in Egypt

In July 2013, the Obama administration falsely said that Secretary of State John Kerry had not been on his yacht during the regime change in Egypt.

Evan after CBS news presented the Obama administration with photographic evidence that Kerry had been on his yacht during that time, the Obama administration still continued to falsely claim that Kerry had not been on his yacht.

CBS News reported:

On Thursday night, CBS News obtained a photo of Kerry on his boat and sent it to the State Department, asking whether they still stand by their denial that Kerry was on a boat.

The response: “Yes.”

208) Said “the planet will boil over” if African citizens adopt a first world standard of living

In July 2013, Obama said “the planet will boil over” if African citizens adopt a first world standard of living.

“the planet will boil over

209) “Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.”

In June 2013, Rasmussen conducted a poll to find out what people considered to be the “nation’s top terror threat.”

Reporting on the results of the poll, Rasmussen wrote:

“Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.”

210) Illegally forced 2,200 privately owned auto dealerships to close, which destroyed 120,000 jobs

In 2009, Obama illegally forced 2,200 privately owned auto dealerships to close. These dealerships had employed 120,000 people.

211) Subsidized the production of alcoholic beverages

In June 2013, Breitbart reported:

The USDA Rural Development agency also touted a program to subsidize the Wine Barn LLC in “marketing and increasing production of its Kansas produced wine.” That cost $25,000. The USDA Rural Development also said it would hand $300,000 to the Mackinaw Trail Winery in Michigan, $100,000 for the Appleton Creek Winery in New York, $162,500 for the Old Westminster Winery in Maryland, and tens of thousands of dollars to wineries in Nebraska and Iowa.

Liquor is the name of the game for the USDA, apparently – they’re also subsidizing the production of vodka in North Carolina, Bloody Mary mix in West Virginia, and hard cider in Virginia.

212) Gave 23,994 tax refunds worth a total of $46,378,040 to illegal aliens who all used the same address

In 2011, the IRS gave 23,994 tax refunds worth a total of $46,378,040 to illegal aliens who all used the same address in Atlanta, Ga.

213) Sued private businesses for using “racist” criminal background checks to screen employees

In June 2013, the Obama administration filed lawsuits against Dollar General and BMW for using criminal background checks to screen employees. The Obama administration claimed that such background checks were “racist.”

214) Used tax money to pay federal employees to organize protests against George Zimmerman

In March and April of 2012, Obama used tax money to pay federal employees to organize protests against George Zimmerman.

215) Illegally continued giving foreign aid to Egypt after it had a coup

Federal law requires that U.S. foreign aid to Egypt be ended if and when Egypt has a coup. However, after Egypt had a coup in July 2013, the Obama administration said that it would continue giving foreign aid to Egypt.

216) Broke promise to end Bush’s surveillance of U.S. citizens who were not suspected of committing a crime

In August 2007, Obama promised that he would end Bush’s surveillance of U.S. citizens who were not suspected of committing a crime. However, in June 2013, such surveillance was still being conducted.

217) Spent $3 million to study the health risks of dating Mexican prostitutes

In July 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had spent $3 million to study the health risks of dating Mexican prostitutes.

218) Lied about the cost of IRS conferences

In June 2013 it was reported that the Obama administration had lied about the cost of IRS conferences. While the actual cost was $50 million, the Obama administration had claimed that the cost was only 1% of that mount.

219) Spent $890,000 per year on service fees for bank accounts that had no money

In April 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration was spending $890,000 each year on service fees for bank accounts that did not have any money in them. At the time, the government had 13,712 empty accounts which it was supposed to have closed, but which it had kept open anyway.

220) Spent $34 million to construct a new military headquarters in Afghanistan after U.S. military commanders said they did not want it

After U.S. military commanders said in 2010 that they did not want a new headquarters in Afghanistan, the Obama administration spent $34 million to build it anyway.

221) Falsely said that his scandals were “phony”

In July 2013, Obama said

“With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball.”

These scandals are not “phony.” I have cited a huge number of sources in this list to show that these scandals are real.

222) Falsely guaranteed that people could keep their doctor

Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said:

“Here is a guarantee that I’ve made… If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

However, in July 2013, the Obama administration said that people “may” be able to keep their doctor.

223) Falsely said the auto bailouts prevented Detroit from going bankrupt

Obama falsely stated that the auto bailouts prevented Detroit from going bankrupt.

224) Illegally seized a privately owned gun from a law abiding citizen

After a jury found George Zimmerman not guilty, the Obama administration announced that it would seize his gun. This violated the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

225) Broke his promise to have real time verifiability of Obamacare subsidies

In July 2013, Investor’s Business Daily wrote:

Meanwhile, the administration tacitly admitted last week that its promise of real-time verification of a consumer’s eligibility to buy subsidized coverage at an ObamaCare exchange wasn’t exactly panning out.

Under ObamaCare, only those who don’t have access to “affordable” insurance at work can buy coverage in an exchange, and only those below certain income levels are eligible for tax subsidies.

Rather than a high-tech instant check, the administration told states they could simply take the applicants’ word for it when it comes to their employer-provided coverage, as well as their “projected annual household income,” without the need for “further verification.”

226) Signed health care reform whose rules contradicted each other

Obamacare allows insurance companies to charge higher premiums for smokers. At the same time, it prohibitsinsurance companies from charging more than three times as much for older people as it does for younger people. In June 2013, Obama’s computer programmers said that they had been unable to write a computer program that simultaneously agreed with both of these rules.

227) Signed a health care reform plan that is so horrible that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it

Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.

But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it.

In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:

“I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:

“I don’t want to speak for the NTEU, but I’ll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you’re an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with rather than go through a change if I don’t need to go through that change.”

228) Tried to tax small businesses at a higher rate than corporations

Obama raised the top tax rate on small businesses to 39.6%, and tried to lower the top tax rate on corporations to 28%.

229) Illegally prevented individual employees of small businesses from choosing their own plan during the first year of Obamacare

Obamacare requires that individual employees of small businesses be allowed to choose their own insurance plan during the first year of Obamacare. However, in March 2013, the Obama administration announced that it would not be allowing them to make this choice during the first year.

230) Falsely said that Obamacare had not hurt jobs

In July 2013, the Obama administration said that Obamacare had not hurt jobs.

However, in the real world, in response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to lay off employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs). In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote aletter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts. The New York Times reported that Obamacare “sharply penalizes full-time employment in favor of part-time employment.” In response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, some restaurants have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including some franchises of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, White Castle, and Fatburger. Community College of Allegheny County switched 200 professors and 200 other employees from full time to part time in response to Obamacare. Clint Benjamin, an English professor at Community College of Allegheny County, saidthat this would reduce his own monthly pay by $600. Also in response to the employer mandate of Obamacare, other colleges have announced plans to switch some of their employees from full time to part time, including Florida’s Palm Beach State College, Ohio’s Youngstown State University, and New Jersey’s Kean University. In Virginia, thousands of government employees had their hours reduced because of Obamacare. The Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh reduced the hours of 48 of its employees in response to Obamacare. Regal Entertainment Group, the largest chain of movie theaters in the country, announced that it would be switching thousands of its employees from full time to part time in response to the Obamacare mandate. Utah’s Granite School District reduced the hours of 1,200 of its employees in response to Obamacare. In response to Obamacare, many Wal-Mart stores have stopped hiring full time workers. In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class… the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation.”

231) Falsely said that health insurance premiums would be reduced by $2,500 per family by the end of his first term

In February 2008, Obama said:

We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.”

However, by the time his first term was over, family premiums had gotten bigger, not smaller. The increase was $3,065 per family.

232) Illegally gave Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts

In August 2013, Obama gave an Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts.

This waiver was illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same.

233) Betrayed the unions that helped him to get elected

In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans

“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here

Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law’s requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members’ compensation package

234) Illegally changed Obamacare to benefit members of Congress and their staff

Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.

Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changes to Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama’s actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.

235) Told General Mills to stop making true claims about Cheerios

For quite some time, advertisements for the breakfast cereal Cheerios made the true and accurate claim that eating Cheerios lowers a person’s cholesterol.

However, even though this claim is true and accurate, in May 2009, the Obama administration orderedGeneral Mills, the maker of Cheerios, to stop making this claim in its commercials.

236) Illegally avoided enforcing the required income verification of people who receive subsidies for Obamacare exchanges

Even though Obamacare requires the government to verify the income of people who receive subsidies for Obamacare exchanges, in August 2013 it was reported that Obama would not be verifying their incomes.

237) Placed a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans

Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax.

238) Made medical care for special needs children more expensive

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare would make it more expensive for the parents of special needs children to pay for their children’s medical equipment and specialized private schools that cater to their medical needs.

239) Responded to the Benghazi attack by going back to bed, and then later got up and headed off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser

In September 2012, after Obama found out that U.S. citizens were being killed in Benghazi, Libya, he went back to bed. After he got up in the morning, he went off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

240) Illegally delayed the caps on out of pocket health care payments without Congressional approval

As it was passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama, Obamacare sets caps on the out of pocket payments that people pay for health care, and these caps were legally required to take effect in January 2014.

However, in August 2013, Obama delayed these caps until January 2015.

Because Obama imposed this delay without it first being approved by Congress, Obama’s action was illegal. The President does not have the legal authority to change an Act that was passed by Congress, without that change first being approved by Congress. What Obama did here is not the act of a President whose power is limited by a written constitution, but is, instead, the action of a dictator.

241) Holds a double standard when it comes to supporting “gun free” zones

In December 2012, a petition at whitehouse.gov stated:

“Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them”

“Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.”

The Obama administration rejected the proposal.

242) Outlawed the low-premium, high-deductible health insurance that some people prefer

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare would bring an end to the low-premium, high-deductible health insurance that some people prefer.

243) Lied about how many people he had helped to protect from mortgage fraud

In August 2013, it was reported that less than one month before the 2012 election, the Obama administration had lied about the number of people that it had helped to protect from mortgage fraud, as well as the total amount of money involved. In August 2013, when the truth was revealed, Newsbusters reported:

“Thus, the number of defendants fell by 80% from what DOJ claimed less than a month before the presidential election. The number of victims fell by 76%. The amount of losses involved dropped by over 90%.”

244) Falsely said the NSA review was being conducted by an “independent” body

In August 2013, Obama said that he would establish an “independent” investigation of NSA surveillance.

However, three days later, it was reported that this so-called “independent” investigation would be run by James Clapper, who had falsely testified to Congress that the NSA was not collecting information on U.S. citizens.

245) Used tax money to pay for a separate flight just for his dog

In August 2013, Obama forced taxpayers to pay for a separate airplane flight just for his dog Bo.

246) Closed off public roads so he could buy books

In August 2013, Obama had public roads closed to the public so he could go to a bookstore. Why didn’t he just order the books online?

247) Gave illegal EPA exemption to one oil refinery, and would not say which refinery it was

The EPA has a very expensive ethanol mandate that applies to all oil refineries. However, in August 2013, it was reported that Obama had given one oil refinery an exemption from this mandate.

This exemption is illegal for two reasons. First, the exemption was not approved by Congress. And secondly, the Constitution requires that federal laws apply equally to everyone.

In addition, Obama refused to say which refinery it was that received this exemption, which is completely contrary to his repeated promises of “transparency.”

248) Created new fines for charitable hospitals that give treatment to uninsured people

In August 2013, it was reported that Obamacare creates new fines for charitable hospitals that give treatment to uninsured people.

249) Blamed poverty on zip codes instead of on behavior

In July 2013, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said:

“Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest-hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the ZIP Code she grows up in. This is simply wrong.”

However, let’s consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.

The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:

1) Finish high school.

2) Get a full-time job.

3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.

The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.

Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.

Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.

(My source for that information is this article, which refers to this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.)

250) Nominated a telecommunications lobbyist and Obama fundraiser to head the FCC

In May 2013, Obama nominated Tom Wheeler to head the FCC. Wheeler had previously been the head of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which is a lobbying organization for the cable TV industry. He had also been the head of CTIA, a lobbying organization for cellphone carriers. In addition, he had also been a fundraiser for Obama.

251) Tried to violate defendants’ right to a fair trial

In August 2013, Reuters reported:

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence – information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

“I have never heard of anything like this at all,” said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

“It is one thing to create special rules for national security,” Gertner said. “Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.”

252) Threatened internet service providers with contempt of court if they did not install surveillance software

In August 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had pressured internet service providers to install surveillance software, so that it could monitor internet traffic without a warrant. Internet service providers who did not cave in to this pressure were threatened by the Obama administration with contempt of court. This violated the Constitution’s ban on warrantless searches. In addition, the executive branch does not have the legal authority to declare contempt of court, as this power is reserved exclusively for the judicial branch.

 

One Hundred Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Tue, 05/07/2013 – 11:39pm.

obama-message

There is a growing groundswell within American Republican and Tea Party ranks that impeachment proceedings should be initiated against President Obama on a whole list of violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Act. ~ Peter Paton

Congressmen Allen West of Florida (R-Florida) and Darrell Issa (R- California) have consistently and loudly criticized the president for overstepping the political mark and bypassing Congress’s approval on a whole range of dubious policies and issues: and the recent Obama attack on the Supreme Court of Justice and the Russian ” Open Mic ” gaffe on National Security, leads to one question…

Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment? Obama did not become the Democratic nominee for President without the help of several leaders of the Democratic Party who knew that he was not eligible for office

Listed below are the One Hundred Articles of Impeachment.

1. Appointment of a “shadow government” of some 35+ individuals termed “czars” who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers – a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 “czars.”

2. No congressional support for Libyan action (violation of the War Powers Act ). Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only “logistical troops.” Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization.

3. Betraying of allies ( Israel and Great Britain. Obama has placed the security of our most trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, in danger while increasing funding to the Palestinian Authority (Fatah, just another Islamic terrorist group) whilst they have enjoined a reconciliation pact with long-standing terrorist group Hamas and the disclosure of British nuclear secrets to the Russians in the Start Treaty.  Obama gave missile codes to British Trident missiles to Russia.

4. Backdoor implementation of the DREAM Act which would grant 22 million illegals amnesty. Obama passed the Dream Act through an executive order, bypassing Congress again. DREAM is: Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors

5. Telegraphing troop reductions to enemies – against the consult of his experienced field commanders – while embracing negotiations with our enemy, the Taliban, and recognizing another, the Muslim Brotherhood.

6. Betrayal of Arizona. Obama brought a federal lawsuit against a sovereignstate, Arizona, seeking to protect its citizens from this threat of mass illegal immigration

7. Obama’s Failure to enforce U.S. law, the Defense of Marriage Act. He’s stripped America of its moral base by his support for homosexuality and the attack on marriage between a man and a women Obama allows the DOJ to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

8. Support of an inept and incompetent attorney general who has failed to prosecute voter intimidation cases (New Black Panther Party), initiated a dangerous gun-smuggling program (Operation Fast and Furious) – which resulted in deaths to one of our own law enforcement agents.

Obama allowed Operation Fast and Furious to occur, which allowed hundreds of Mexican nationals and Border Agent Brian Terry to be murdered with illegal arms given out by the ATF and DOJ.

9. Increasing the regulatory burden on American business through bypassing the legislative process with his executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

10. Failure to take the steps necessary to secure our borders and stem the flow of illegal immigration, termed as “repel invasions” in our United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4.

Obama has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

11. Inappropriately commanding the release of strategic oil reserves and providing Brazil $2 billion for its offshore oil exploration.

12. Illegally soliciting funds from within the White House ($5 dinner video fundraiser). The unalienable rights endowed to us by the Creator; life, liberty, and the pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness – are being threatened by the Obama administration.

This current government has abridged the consent of the governed and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends. It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

13. Taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare.

14. ”Open Mic ” gaffe in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election

15. Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to Get Scholarship? http://tinyurl.com/czldzx8

16. Obama’s secret back channel Nuclear deal with Iran, a sworn enemy of America and our Allies

17. Obama’s offer of a seat at the table for our avowed enemy the Taliban

18. Barack Hussein Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS because he was born in Kenya

19. Obama and his Administration leaking previously classified information about our intelligence communities’ efforts to slow down Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry.

20. Obama destabilized Western Ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and allowed the Militant  and Anti West Muslim Brotherhood to take over the Egyptian Regime, posing a mortal threat to our Ally Israel and our own Western assets and interests in the region. Obama instigated a revolution in Egypt against an ally in the War on Terror.

21. Obama has appointed Muslim Brotherhood advisers, enemies of the State, to the White House. Aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood is TREASON per Article 3 Sec III of the US Constitution.. http://tinyurl.com/3x88l2s

22. Obama bypassing Congress again by Executive Decree to allow Illegal Immigrants to remain and vote in America for partisan electoral purposes and reasons.

23. Obama selling citizenship to criminals in direct opposition to Federal Law.

24. Obama admin assisted Egypt in remilitarizing the Sinai, “something forbidden by the Camp David Accords” http://is.gd/nDwdbl

25. Obama has attempted to compel religious institutions to pay for abortion services — a clear violation of First Amendment rights

26. Obama apologizing on 9/11 day to our sworn Islamist enemies, the Salafists, the same day these terrorists massacred the American Ambassador and three other American officials in the Benghazi Embassy, Libya. and ramsacked and looted the Cairo Embassy in Egypt.

27. Obama spending billions in aid on America´s enemies, while disregarding the needs of the US.

28. Obama is directly responsible for the many wars and murders of Christians in the Middle East

29. Obama has financially ruined this country, and his actions are leading to the demise of the dollar. President Obama is either an idiot or he is purposely trying to destroy the American economy.

30. Obama is hollowing out our military, and destroying our intelligence gathering capability.

31. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro deliberately concealed his true illegal background to be POTUS, TRUTH out: why #Obama records sealed FOREIGN student ID http://twitpic.com/aufduf Can we trust Pres. who games system – lies

32. Criminal cover up by the White House over BengaziGate, where four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens were murdered by Islamic Extremists.

33. #CANDYGATE Collusion with CNN Moderator Candy Crowley at the 2nd Debate  to cover up BengaziGate  The Candy-Obama Controversy : Get the Transcript’  http://amsp.ec/1P1Dyy

34. Obama’s Illegal Foreign Campaign money.

35. Obama Administration defining the Fort Hood Terrorist Act as a Workplace Accident, which gave succour and comfort to our enemies.

36. The Border-gate arms deal offense that resulted in the death of a border patrol agent as well as numerous innocent Mexican civilians.

37. Suspected organized and widespread election fraud engineered by Agents of the Obama Regime at the November 6th Presidential Election.

38. Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers misappropriated over 300 million dollars in donations meant for the education of Chicago’s minority students. They routed the money to Obama’s community activist buddies who then tried to turn the students in radicals. The program was a total failure.

39. Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, redirected tens of millions in Illinois tax dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko, to provide housing for low income families. They returned the favor with political donations. The housing units were built with cheap materials and labor and are uninhabitable after a mere 10 years of use.

40. Obama accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards after the credit card filters used to screen out foreign money, was switched off. This also allowed domestic donors, who were over the legal limit, to contribute more.

41. Obama attempted to move control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House, to be managed by then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

42. Obama had provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws.

43. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in the sanctuary cities, i.e.,San Francisco, etc.

44. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obama’s buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson (Sacramento), for fraud (850K) with AmeriCorps.

45. Obama is in contempt of Federal court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf…

46. Obama spent a month as the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, which raises the question of his conflict of interest between the US and the UN. This is also likely a violation of his Oath of Office as the UN conflicts with our Constitution on many levels, i.e., LOST, UN Small Arms ban, etc.

47. Obama signed an EO in December 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in the US without oversight by Congress, courts, FBI, or local law enforcement.

48. Obama and SecState Clinton misappropriated, er, used $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help Obama’s homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to “social justice”.

This includes the fact that the Kenyan constitution adopted Sharia Law, which violates the basic human rights of women.

49. Obama was likely involved with then Governor Rod Blagojevich to try and sell his Illinois Senate seat, i.e., pay to play. Jesse Jackson Jr is under investigation for it and it appears that Valerie Jarrett might also have been involved.

50. Obama ran a website that asked Americans to report on other Americans, in the area of ObamaKare, using whitehouse.gov and taxpayer money to do so. He repeated this with AttackWatch.

51. Obama got onto the Indiana ballot through voter fraud in 2008.

52. Obama sealed all of his records that would show that he is possibly an illegal president, that he is feloniously using a false SSN, that his draft registration number is false, that his Fulbright award was falsely awarded as Obama claimed foreign student status, and that his student aid was falsely obtained.

53. Obama violated the Constitution by firing the GM CEO.

54. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by forcing GM bondholders to accept millions of dollars in losses of money that they were legally entitled to.

55. Obama violated bankruptcy laws by awarding the UAW with a share of GM and Chrysler during their bankruptcy proceedings.

56. Obama bought votes for ObamaKare with acts like, “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and the DoI increasing water allocations toCalifornia’sCentral Valley. This brought in the votes of Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, both Democrat holdouts.

57. Obama lied about Americans being able to keep their healthcare coverage if they wanted to. ObamaKare is already forcing them out of their current coverage.

58. Obama attempted to bribe Joe Sestak with a job offer in order to get him to drop out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter.

59. Obama bypassed Congress and told the EPA to set carbon emission standards.

60. Obama forced BP to pony up a $20 billion slush fund to compensate Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the BP oil spill. It was administered by one of Obama’s political appointees and there is NO Congressional oversight.

61. Obama did nothing to Holder (abetted a felony) when Holder refused to prosecute two New Black Panther Party members for brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Filthadelphia. A direct violation of the voters Civil Rights.

62. Obama bypassed the Senate with a recess appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766

63. Obama illegally fired Sherry Sherrod from the USDA over remarks she made at an NAACP meeting in March 2010. He violated her due process.

64. Obama violated contractual law when his regime cancelled 77 oil field development contracts previously approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, under Bush 43’s administration. This keeps us from extracting from 2-3 TRILLION barrels of oil.

65. Obama used the DHS to determine the political affiliation of Americans making FOIA requests about the Regime. This led to requests being stalled, lost, etc.

66. Obama acted in April 2009, at the G20 meeting, to expand the Special Drawing Rights, that now gives the IMF more control over the US economy.

67. Obama issued an EO on July 12, 2011, attempting to restrict the Second  Amendment rights of US citizens in Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.

68. Obama’s allowed the FCC to assume authority over the internet, in direct violation of a federal appeals court that DENIED the commission that authority. In December, the FCC voted and passed the first federal regulations on internet traffic.

69. Obama allows the DHS/TSA to routinely violate the 4th/5th Amendment rights of Americans at airports, train stations, and VIPER checkpoints.

70. Obama allows the DOJ in 2009 to stop enforcing federal drug laws in regards to marijuana.

71. Obama attempted to bypass Congress and raise the Debt Ceiling by “reinterpreting” the 14th Amendment.

72. Obama just bypassed the Senate AGAIN by appointing Richard Cordray to a new unconstitutional agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766

73. Obama deprived the due process of two U.S.citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, by assassinating them via a CIA drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011. This also raises the question of an act of war against Yemen for firing into a sovereign nation. Obama said in 2008:

“No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution to detainU.S.citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”

74. Obama allowed Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant waivers to No Child Left Behind however, this is a law enacted by Congress and neither Obama nor Duncan have the authority to authorize that.

75. Obama allowed the bailouts to grant money without the authority to do so.“No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7U.S.Constitution

76. Obama allowed Operation Castaway to occur, which allowed firearms laws to be broken through coercion of legal gun dealers.

77. Obama bypassed the Senate to appoint three people to the National Labor Relations Board. (Naturally, they’ll all be Obomobots) Violates policy.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=273766

78. Obama twenty three illegal Executive Orders to impose a Gun Grab, which is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

79.  Providing aid and comfort to the enemy by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thereby providing the impetus for the escalation of the green on blue attacks

80. Obama by announcing the date for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby triggered the disintegration of the green respect that had been a goal of the training mission.

81. Obama deliberately interfering in the elections of our chief ally in the Middle East, Israel to try and influence the result.

82. Obama supplying the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt with F16 Jets and 220 Abram Tanks, sworn enemies of the USA and our Chief Ally Israel.

83. Obama nominating a Muslim John Brennan to be Director of the CIA,when America is at War with Radical Islamic Terrorists.

84. Obama nominating Chuck Hagel, a sworn enemy of our Chief Ally Israel, to be Secretary of Defense

85. Obama and Holder breaking Constitutional Law, by introducing Drone attacks on Americans.

86. Obama is using his Executive Decree to allow 80,000 Muslims to enter America next year, and 100,000 Muslims  for the next five years.

87. The Obama administration failed to enforce a century-old law meant to prevent immigrants from taking root in the U.S. only to live on the government dole

88. The Obama administration’s release of hundreds and potentially thousands of illegal-alien criminals from U.S. detention centers

89. The sequester is actually a plot by Obama to cut defense spending and transfer money to “ACORN-like” groups that would help elect Democratic candidates.

90. The Obama administration’s allegedly revealing his political opponents’ private tax information to the media.

91. Obama allowing the third Saudi Bomber in Boston be deported to Saudi Arabia – Arch Terrorist Osama Bin Laden’s son

92. Obama Will Not Charge Boston Jihad Bombers as Enemy Combatants

93. White House Link to Illegal Taping of Sen. McConnell

94. Allowing Islamic Terror Group the Taliban to flourish and operate on American soil.

95. The Obama Government has been caught promoting the delivery of taxpayer-funded welfare benefits to foreigners – “These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible,”

96. Agents of the Obama Regime conspired in 2008 to get Obama’s name illegally put on the Indiana Primary Ballot.

97. Obama Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Involved In Massive Vote Fraud Scandal? http://j.mp/15QrBsb

98. TREASON…Obama Government Hired Al Qaeda to Defend the Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi?

99. Obama Military Considers Stopping Christians from Proselytizing

100. Obama and SecState Clinton’s efforts to bring the US under the UN’s Small Arms Treaty are direct violations of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

UNKNOWN: How many exact other violations of his Oath of Office.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

impeach

Updates as needed…


Justifying the Unjustifiable: US Uses Past Crimes to Legalize Future Ones

Diana Johnstone
Ron Paul Institute
August 26, 2013

The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal” for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo war”.

natokillers

This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars.  The pretext of “saving the Kosovars” from an imaginary “genocide” was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public.  Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.

On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.” (By the way, the “air war” was not “in Kosovo”, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)

On Friday, Obama admitted that going in and attacking another country “without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence” raised questions in terms of international law.

According to the New York Times, “Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.”

“It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.  “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.”

Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO, suggests that the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons in Syria amounts to a grave humanitarian emergency, just as the Clinton administration argued in 1999 that “a grave humanitarian emergency” presented the “international community” with “the responsibility to act”.

This amounts to creative legality worthy of the planet’s number one Rogue State.

An Illegal War as Precedent for More War

The US/NATO war against Yugoslavia, which used unilateral force to break up a sovereign state, detaching the historic Serbian province of Kosovo and transforming it into a US satellite, was clearly in violation of international law.

In May 2000, the distinguished British authority on international law, Sir Ian Brownlie (1936-2010), presented a 16,000-word Memorandum, evaluating the war’s legal status for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British Parliament.

Brownlie recalled that key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter.

During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect” (R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.

Concerning the Kosovo war, in his Memorandum Professor Brownlie reached the following major conclusions:

– The primary justification for the bombing of Yugoslavia was always the imposition of the NATO plans for the future of Kosovo. It was in this context that the bombing campaign was planned in August 1998.

-The threats of massive air strikes were made in the same context and were first made public in October 1998. Neither the purpose of the planned air strikes nor their implementation related to events on the ground in Kosovo in March 1999.

–  The cause of the air strikes was quite simple: given that Yugoslavia had not given in to threats, the threats had to be carried out.

–  The legal basis of the action, as presented by the United Kingdom and other NATO States, was at no stage adequately articulated.

–  Humanitarian intervention, the justification belatedly advanced by the NATO States, has no place either in the United Nations Charter or in customary international law.

– If the view had been held that the Permanent Members of the Security Council would recognise the need for humanitarian action, then no doubt a resolution would have been sought.

– The intentions of the United States and the United Kingdom included the removal of the Government of Yugoslavia. It is impossible to reconcile such purposes with humanitarian intervention.

– The claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds appears difficult to reconcile with the disproportionate amount of violence involved in the use of heavy ordnance and missiles. The weapons had extensive blast effects and the missiles had an incendiary element. A high proportion of targets were in towns and cities. Many of the victims were women and children. After seven weeks of the bombing at least 1,200 civilians had been killed and 4,500 injured.

–  In spite of the references to the need for a peaceful solution to be found in Security Council Resolutions, the public statements of Mrs Albright, Mr Cook, Mr Holbrooke, and others, and the reiterated threats of massive air strikes, make it very clear that no ordinary diplomacy was envisaged.

The “Kosovo treatment”

As a final synopsis, Brownlie wrote a prophetic note on future use of “the Kosovo treatment”:

The writer has contacts with a great number of diplomats and lawyers of different nationalities. The reaction to the NATO bombing campaign outside Europe and North America has been generally hostile. Most States have problems of separatism and could, on a selective basis, be the objects of Western ‘crisis management’. The selection of crises for the ‘Kosovo’ treatment will depend upon the geopolitical and collateral agenda. It is on this basis, and not a humanitarian agenda, that Yugoslavia is marked out for fragmentation on a racial basis, whilst Russia and Indonesia are not.

He added: “Forcible intervention to serve humanitarian objectives is a claim which is only open to powerful States to make against the less powerful. The fate of Yugoslavia will have caused considerable damage to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

The Brownlie Memorandum to the British Parliament is the most thorough assessment of the legal status of the Kosovo War.  It is quite remarkable that the liberal warhawks around Obama talk of using that war as a “legal precedent” for a new war against Syria.

This amounts to saying that a crime committed once becomes a “precedent” to justify the crime being committed the next time.

How Many Times Can You Fool Most of the People?

If understood correctly, the Kosovo war was indeed a precedent that should act as a warning signal.

How many times can the United States use a false alarm to start an aggressive war?  Non-existent “genocide” in Kosovo and Libya, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now what looks to much of the world like a “false flag” chemical weapons attack in Syria.

The United States habitually announces the presence of a desired casus belli, dismissing demands for concrete evidence.

In Kosovo, the United States obtained withdrawal of international observers who could have testified whether or not there was evidence of “genocide” of Kosovars.  The accusations escalated during the war, and when, afterwards, no evidence of such mass murder was found, the matter was forgotten.

In Iraq, there was never any proof of WMD, but the US went ahead and invaded.

In Libya, the pretext for war was a misquoted statement of Gaddafi threatening a “massacre of civilians” in Benghazi.  This was exposed as a fake, but again, NATO bombed, the regime was toppled, and the pretext falls into oblivion.

Sunday, just as the Syrian government announced readiness to allow international inspectors to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use, the White House responded, “too late!”

A senior Obama administration official demanding anonymity (one can reasonably guess the official was Obama’s hawkish National Security Advisor Susan Rice) issued a statement claiming that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians and that a promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

In the world beyond the beltway, there is a great deal of doubt – especially about the credibility of the United States government when it comes to finding pretexts to go to war.  Moreover, setting “chemical weapons” as a “red line” obliging the US to go to war is totally arbitrary.  There are many ways of killing people in a civil war.  Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a “false flag” operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.

Who really wants or needs US intervention?  The American people?  What good will it do them to get involved in yet another endless Middle East war?

But who has influence on Obama?  The American people?  Or is it rather “our staunchest ally”, who is most concerned about rearranging the Middle East neighborhood?

“This situation must not be allowed to continue,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, expressing remarkable concern for Syrian civilians “who were so brutally attacked by weapons of mass destruction.”

“The most dangerous regimes in the world must not be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons in the world,” Netanyahu added.

Incidentally, polls have been taken showing that for much of the world, the most dangerous regime in the world is Israel, which is allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons – nuclear weapons.  But there is no chance that Israel will ever get “the Kosovo treatment”.

Syria, Iran issue first explicit warning to Israel if US attacks

‘We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding,’ says official in Damscus; Russia: West has no proof of chemical attack

By STUART WINER and AP August 26, 2013, 5:47 pm

  • A screen capture from a video purporting to show the Syrian Army firing a Scud missile (image capture: YouTube)

    A screen capture from a video purporting to show the Syrian Army firing a Scud missile (image capture: YouTube)

    A senior Syrian official on Monday issued a first direct warning that if attacked, his country would retaliate against Israel. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Baath Party official who used to serve as Syria’s assistant information minister, said in a radio interview that Damascus would consider Israel “behind the [Western] aggression and [it] will therefore come under fire.”

    “We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding,” he said. “Normally the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel.”

    Muftah concluded with a warning that “If the US or Israel make the mistake of taking advantage of the chemical issue… the region will go up in flames… that will affect security not only in the region but across the world.”

    His words were echoed by Iranian officials, who on Monday shrugged off the threat of a US attack on its close ally Syria, but said that if such a strike were to take place, Israel would suffer.

    “[The Americans] are incapable of starting a new war in the region, because of their lacking economic capabilities and their lack of morale,” said Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Republican Guards’ elite Basij force.

    “No military attack will be waged against Syria,” said Hossein Sheikholeslam, a member of Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly. “Yet, if such an incident takes place, which is impossible, the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria.”

    Israeli military officials have indicated they believe it unlikely that Syria would target Israel if the US or others intervened, but Israel has reportedly been taking security precautions just in case.

    “Our hand is always on the pulse,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday. “Our finger is a responsible one and if needed, is on the trigger. We will always know how to protect our citizens and our country against those who come to injure us or try to attack us.”

    The Syrian and Iranian statements Monday came as Britain reportedly pushed for US action on Syria in the wake of a horrific alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians outside Damascus. According to a reportfrom the Times of London, British Prime Minister David Cameron wants a strike in the coming days while outrage over the alleged attack is still fresh. British Foreign Minister William Hague said in an interview with the BBC on Monday that action could be taken even without the full support of the UN Security Council.

    Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Western nations calling for military action against Syria have no proof the Syrian government is behind the alleged chemical weapons attack.

    France, Britain, Israel and some US congressmen have said military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime should be an option if it has used such weapons. A UN team is on the ground investigating the August 21 attack that left hundreds dead.

    Lavrov said in a news conference that the countries calling for action have assumed the role of “both investigators and the UN Security Council” in probing the incident.

    Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran's Basij force (screen capture: Youtube/PresTVGlobalNews)

    Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij force (screen capture: Youtube/PresTVGlobalNews)

    “They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the ‘red line’ has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer,” he said.

    Lavrov likened the situation in Syria to the run-up before the 2003 military operation in Iraq. He warned against military intervention in Syria, saying “the use of force without a sanction of the UN Security Council is a crude violation of the international law.”

    Russia’s foreign policy chief also blamed the Syrian opposition for manipulating reports of the attack in order to derail a peace conference on Syria. Lavrov said Russian and US experts were days away from meeting up to arrange a peace conference in Geneva on Syria.

    “This hysteria will definitely work against this meeting,” he said.

    In Syria, a UN vehicle belonging to a team investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus was shot at by snipers Monday as experts were moving to investigate the incident, which left hundreds dead.

    “I don’t have any doubts that it will be said that the firing came from the other side. But all this is moving in one direction and doesn’t inspire optimism,” Lavrov said.

    Syrian Rebels Behind Sniper Attack on UN Inspectors?

    Opposition militants previously kidnapped multiple UN peacekeepers

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    August 26, 2013

    Given their treatment of UN peacekeepers in the past, today’s sniper attack in Syria which targeted UN chemical weapons inspectors was likely carried out by opposition militants – yet another reminder that the US and Britain are about to launch military attacks that will aid terrorists.

    “Unidentified snipers have opened fire on a convoy of UN experts investigating suspected chemical weapons attacks in Syria’s capital,”reports BBC News, adding that a vehicle was shot at “multiple times” before being forced to turn back, despite being clearly marked with the UN’s familiar black on white lettering.

    The attack delayed the inspectors and meant they were only able to visit the affected sites for half an hour rather than the planned four hours.

    Given the fact that rebel militants have displayed hostility when encountering UN workers in the past, the culprits behind the attack are almost certainly fighting on the side of the FSA.

    Back in March, rebels kidnapped 21 UN peacekeepers and commandeered their vehicles on the Golan Heights and demanded Bashar Al-Assad remove forces form a nearby town before they were returned safely. The kidnapping was swiftly condemned by the UN Security Council and cited by the Toronto Star as an incident that “raised serious questions about the country’s future if Bashar Assad is ousted.”

    The same rebel brigade repeated the stunt when they kidnapped a further four UN soldiers in May.

    Rebel snipers have also gunned down numerous journalists over the course of the 18 month conflict.

    Why rebels would want to intimidate UN inspectors and prevent them from ascertaining the truth behind last week’s attack is up for debate, but since it already appears that US and Britain have made the decision to launch cruise missile attacks in aid of the rebels, any deviation from the current narrative would be counterproductive for opposition forces.

    It would make little sense for the sniper attack to have been carried out by Bashar Al-Assad’s forces given the fact that Assad invited the inspectors to enter the country in the first place. The UN has made it clear that the inspectors are not even in Syria to discover who was behind the last week’s incident, merely toconfirm that it was a chemical weapons attack.

    The last time UN inspectors assessed claims of chemical weapons use, they concluded that it was likely the rebels had launched the attacks, a finding that would not be welcomed a second time by either FSA militants or NATO powers.

    The Syrian opposition has now canceled its participation in upcoming peace talks as a result of the alleged chemical weapons attack, another sign that the FSA has no interest in a political solution that would end the violence and is instead hanging on for western military support that would grease the skids for a bloody overthrow of the current government.

    Watch the video below, which shows FSA rebels operating a sniper gun via remote control.

    Reports: U.S.-led Rebels Sent into Syria Before Chemical Attack

    Alex Newman
    thenewamerican.com
    August 26, 2013

    syriamap

    Two reports in recent days have suggested that establishment-backed Syrian “rebel” forces trained and led by American, Israeli, and Jordanian commanders entered Syria and began pushing toward the capital city of Damascus this month. According to sources cited in the international reports, the foreign-led opposition fighters began the latest offensive in mid-August, prior to the reported chemical-weapon attack in the Ghouta region of Syria widely said to have claimed hundreds of civilian lives so far.

    Sources seeking to blame the Bashar al-Assad regime for the August 21 massacre have seized on the reports to claim that the dictator, despite repeated vows not to use weapons of mass destruction absent a foreign invasion, resorted to such desperate measures to beat back the latest offensive. Those suggesting the attack was a so-called “false-flag operation” perpetrated by opposition fighters to blame on the regime, meanwhile, have pointed to the news as yet another indicator that the rebels were indeed responsible for deploying the chemical weapons.

    According to a report dated August 21 by DEBKAfile, an Israeli intelligence and analysis service, the first contingent of 250 foreign-trained “rebel” fighters entered Syria from Jordan on August 17 under foreign command. The opposition fighters were trained in “special operations tactics” by U.S. and Jordanian instructors and armed with Russian-made weapons supplied by the Obama administration and the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, the report continued. “They are fighting under U.S. and Jordanian commanders based in the Hashemite Kingdom,” DEBKAfile reported referring to Jordan, adding that additional rebel fighters were standing by ready to be deployed.

    “According to our military sources, the rebel units are advancing at speed along the Syrian-Israeli border. They have forced the Syrian brigades posted there into retreating from positions inside a strip of 1-25 kilometers from the border, and captured the villages of Raihaniya, Breiqa and Beer Ajam,” the Israeli service reported, saying that the rebels were trying to create a “buffer zone” inside Syrian territory. “This Jordan-based rebel offensive was launched shortly after Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint U.S. Chiefs of Staff, visited U.S. forces in Jordan and inaugurated the underground U.S. war room near [the Jordanian capital] Amman for commanding the operation in Syria.”

    The other major report about the foreign-run rebel operation, published on August 22 by Le Figaro, a leading French newspaper, also cited “military sources” reporting that two groups of guerilla fighters trained and led by the U.S., Israeli, and Jordanian governments, crossed the border from Jordan into Syria. According to the article, the first 300 rebels crossed on August 17 in the Deraa region, with the second contingent following two days later. Hundreds of fighters from the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” trained and supervised by the CIA and other foreign intelligence services, are reportedly involved in the scheme, the paper reported. The FSA is one of the many “rebel” forces operating in Syria — more than a few of which have openly declared their allegiance to al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups.

    Turkey-based representative Khalid Hodja, speaking for an umbrella organization composed of some of the myriad rebel factions operating in Syria and known as the “Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces” (SNC), promptly denied the two reports, claiming they were designed to raise suspicion about advances made by opposition forces. “The news report says the U.S. and Israel formed special groups made up of volunteers to prevent Syrian radical groups from having control over sophisticated weapons. This claim has no logical consistency,” he was quoted as saying by World Bulletin. “The mentioned areas are under the control of the Free Syrian Army, Syrian Islamic Front and Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. Such operations claimed by the newspaper are out of the question.”

    According to the Istanbul-based news service, Hodja blasted what he called a “show of cheap heroism” by the West. “These claims aim to spread the idea that the West is the savior of Syrian people,” the SNC representative was quoted as saying, adding that cooperation with Israeli authorities by Muslim rebel fighters was out of the question. “If the West was sincere, it would allow the arming of the opposition,” he added.

    Of course, as The New American and countless other media outlets have documented for well over a year, Western governments and Sunni Arab despots have been arming, funding, and training the opposition. The U.S. government has actually been supporting the opposition with millions of taxpayer dollars since long before open conflict erupted in Syria, according to official documents released by WikiLeaks.

    As The New American has also been reporting for a year, the Obama administration set up camp in Jordan close to the Syrian border to train rebel fighters in the use of advanced military weapons and tactics. U.S. personnel are also in Turkey engaged in similar operations. Meanwhile, there are still hundreds of American troops all along Syria’s borders, as well as Patriot missiles, fighter jets, and other military equipment. With the latest allegations about chemical weapons, the usual chorus of interventionists has become increasingly vocal in demanding that Obama launch a full-blown military assault on Syria.

    Suggesting CIA personnel were on the ground in Syria working alongside rebel forces, Le Figaro claimed that the operation may have been among the reasons for Assad’s alleged deployment of chemical weapons last week. However, as The New American reported, numerous independent experts and even foreign governments have expressed skepticism over claims that the regime was responsible for the attack — especially considering the fact that United Nations inspectors recently arrived in Syria. For now, what really happened remains unclear, but rebels have been caught perpetrating atrocities and blaming them on the regime on more than a few occasions.

    There has not yet been any official confirmation by the U.S., Israeli, or Jordanian governments about the reported incursion by foreign-led fighters into Syria. Still, the two reports promptly made headlines around the world, with various governments and analysts citing the allegations to support widely divergent views about what happened on August 21 outside of Damascus.

    Western governments have argued that “evidence” points to the Assad regime being responsible for the attack, with U.S. officials cited in news reports even claiming recently that they were almost certain the Syrian dictatorship was behind the attack. An unnamed “senior Obama administration official” wasquoted saying that, “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

    Separately, top officials have indicated publicly that American forces are ready to intervene in Syria if Obama gives the order — apparently offering further evidence that the administration is under the mistaken belief that it can start a war without permission from Congress, which is required under the U.S. Constitution. “The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “That requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets to be able to carry out different options, whatever option the president may choose.”

    On the other side, more than a few experts and multiple governments, including authorities from Russia, have suggested that the chemical-weapons attack may have been a “false flag” carried out by rebel forces as UN inspectors were arriving in the country — presumably to provide a justification for overt foreign intervention in the conflict by Western and Sunni powers seeking regime change. “All of this really looks like an attempt, at any cost, to create a reason to produce demands for the U.N. Security Council to side with the regime’s opponents and undermine the chances of convening the Geneva conference,” declared Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevi in a widely quoted statement. Officials from the Communist dictatorship ruling mainland China expressed similar concerns.

    While the two most recent reports about foreign-led “rebels” entering Syria have not been officially confirmed, the news, if true, should hardly be surprising to anyone following the conflict closely. Despite the well-documented fact that the “rebels” are almost exclusively foreign-backed jihadists seeking to overthrow Assad’s secular dictatorship — the most effective opposition force even officially became a branch of al-Qaeda in April — the “regime change” effort has been nurtured by Western powers and Sunni despots for years. Regardless of the facts, it appears to analysts as though a wider war is fast approaching.

    Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

    Assad: Accusations that Syria used chemical weapon ‘against logic’

    RT
    August 26, 2013

    Syrian leader Bashar Assad has stressed that the claims of his government using chemical weapons made by Western countries are “an insult to common sense” and “nonsense,” in an interview to Russia’s Izvestia newspaper.

    Credit: Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom

    Bashar al-Assad
    Credit: Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom

    “The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It’s nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence. And it’s one of the most powerful countries that does it – the US. They accused us on Wednesday, and in only two days the American leadership announces they started to collect the evidence.… They accuse our army of using chemical weapons in the area that’s reportedly controlled by the terrorists. In fact, there is no precise front line between the army and the insurgents in that area. And how can a government use chemical weapons – or any other weapons of mass destruction – in the area where government troops are concentrated? This is against elementary logic.”

    The Syrian leader also indicated that not only the accusations stopped making sense, but the whole Western “peacemaking” plan in Syria has run amok: the Us and its allies have attempted to launch the mission, but failed to convince Russia and China to vote for it.

    “They have failed to convince their peoples and the rest of the world that the policy, which they carry out in the Middle East, is smart and effective. Moreover, it appears that the situation here is different compared to the one in Egypt and Tunisia.”

    “One and the same plot of the Arabic revolutions is no longer convincing. They may launch any kind of war but they don’t know how long it would last and how much of a territory it would cover. They have realized that their plot has gone out of control.”

    The main cause of the continuing conflict, the Syrian leader pointed out, is the influx of tens of thousands of foreign insurgents that arrive in Syria every month and kill innocent people. What’s more, the terrorists are provided with money and weapons from abroad. And, according to Assad, world leaders don’t understand the dangers that terrorism may entail – despite past experience.

    “Nowadays there are many politicians, although very few leaders, among the heads of states. The point is that they don’t know history and don’t learn its lessons. Some of them forget even the recent past. Have they learnt the lessons of past 50 years? Have they even glanced through the documents of their predecessors who failed in all wars they started since Vietnam? Have they realized those wars brought about nothing but havoc and instability in the Middle East and in other regions? To those politicians I would like to explain that terrorism isn’t a bargaining chip to pull out and use anytime one wants, and then put back. Terrorism, as a scorpion, can bite anytime. You can’t be for the terrorism in Syria and against it in Mali.”

    However, Russia’s aid helps to improve at least the economic situation in the conflict-torn country, Assad indicated, not revealing any particular details though.

    “I want to say that all contracts that have been concluded with Russia are being fulfilled. And no crisis or pressure from the US, Europe and the Gulf states interfered with the deliveries. Russia provides for Syria the things that are necessary for its protection, and the protection of its people. And the things Russia delivers to Syria according to our military contracts will undeniably lead to the improvement of the Syrian economy.”

    Senators: Bombing Syria “Responsibility of Civilized Nations Everywhere”

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    August 26, 2013

    Republican neocons made the rounds on Sunday, demanding the Obama administration take military action against Syria for an alleged chemical attack in Damascus last week.

    Sen. Corker calls for “surgical” strikes in Syria.

    Despite a lack of evidence, Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News the United States must assume a “leadership” role in an attack. “This was not contrived,” Croker said about doubts the Syrian government is responsible for the unsubstantiated attack. “And, obviously, the world is a better place when the United States takes leadership.”

    U.S. “leadership” in the illegal war against Libya resulted in at least 30,000 people killed and 50,000 wounded.

    Corker said the U.S. must conduct “surgical” attacks but stopped short of sending troops to defeat Bashar al-Assad and his military.

    Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said there is “very little doubt” that Syria used a chemical weapons against civilians, an assertion lacking any credible evidence, and said it is “the responsibility of civilized nations everywhere” to bomb and terrorize the people of Syria.

    McCain and Graham called for an intense bombing campaign. “Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad’s air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground,” the neocon dynamic duo said in a joint statement. “In addition, we must begin a large-scale effort to train and equip moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition with the game-changing weapons they need to shift the military balance against Assad’s forces.”

    In fact, “moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” are rare, if not virtually nonexistent. “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the New York Timesreported in April.

    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, responsible for lending a hand in the neocon mass murder campaign in Iraq under similar dubious pretense, told CBS on Sunday he is uncertain there is such a thing as a “moderate, vetted” secular opposition in Syria.

    “I have no affection for Mr. Assad. I’ve dealt with him. I know him. And he is a pathological liar with respect to my interaction with him,” the retired general said. “But at the same time, I am less sure of the resistance. What do they represent? And is it becoming even more radicalized with more al-Qaeda coming in?”

    Top Dem: We Will Ignore Congress on Syria Attack

    Rep. Eliot Engel calls for cruise missile assault

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    August 26, 2013

    Calling on President Obama to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News that Congress would not be consulted on the move and that lawmakers would have to “assent” to it at a later date.

    Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Engel disagreed with his counterpart Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who said Obama should seek Congressional authorization before any military action.

    “I do agree with Senator Corker that I think Congress needs to be involved, but perhaps not initially,” said Engel, adding, “Perhaps the president could start and then Congress needs to resolve it an–and assent to it.”

    In other words, Engel wants Obama to launch the attack on Syria with complete disregard for the War Powers Resolution, which states that military action must be preceded by Congressional approval, and then only use Congress later as a rubber stamp.

    “I certainly would do cruise missile strikes,” added Engel, throwing his support behind military intervention that would likely see rebel fighters who are being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists seize power.

    Engel’s rhetoric is identical to that which surrounded the military attack on Libya, which was also green lighted without Congressional approval after the Obama administration ludicrously termed the assault a “kinetic military action.”

    When Obama faced criticism from Congress over the 2011 attack, he churlishly dismissed the issue, remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” before claiming that his authority came from NATO and the UN.

    According to Congressman Walter Jones, this amounted to “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

    Passed after the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution states that the President’s powers as commander-in-chief should be “exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States.”

    Following last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus, the United States and Britain have begun to make preparations for cruise missile attacks on Syria that are expected to take place within days, despite Bashar Al-Assad’s government agreeing to a United Nations-led inspection of the areas where the incident occurred.

    15 Signs That Obama Has Already Made The Decision To Go To War With Syria

    Michael Snyder
    Economic Collapse
    August 26, 2013

    The Obama administration seems absolutely determined to help radical Islamic jihadists that havebeheaded Christians, that have massacred entire Christian villages, and that have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda topple the Assad regime and take over Syria.

    Public domain

    Public domain

    Yes, the Assad regime is horrible, but if these jihadist lunatics take control it will destabilize the entire region, make the prospect of a major regional war much more probable, and plunge the entire nation of Syria into a complete and utter nightmare.  It has been estimated that somewhere around 100,000 people have already been killed in the civil war in Syria, and now it looks like the U.S. military and the rest of NATO plan to become directly involved in the conflict.  The Obama administration is actually considering an attack on Syria even though the American people are overwhelmingly against it, Obama does not have Congressional approval to start a war, and he will never get approval for military action from the UN because it will be blocked by Russia.  This is setting up to become a colossal foreign policy disaster for the United States.

    A potential war with Syria has been brought to the forefront because of a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week that killed as many as 1,400 people.  The Obama administration and several other western nations are blaming this attack on the Assad regime.

    But others are pointing out that it would make absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to do such a thing.  They appear to be winning the civil war, and Assad knows that Obama has previously said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “red line” for the United States.

    So why would the Assad regime launch a brutal chemical weapons attack against women and children just miles from where UN inspectors were staying?

    Why would Assad risk war with the United States and the rest of NATO?

    Assad would have to be extremely stupid or extremely suicidal to do such a thing.

    The ones that benefit from this chemical weapons attack are the jihadist rebels.  The odds of foreign intervention in the conflict just went way, way up.

    We will probably never learn the real truth about who was actually behind that attack.  And even if it had not happened, the U.S. and the rest of NATO would have probably come up with another justification to go to war anyway.  They appear absolutely obsessed with getting rid of Assad, but they have not really thought through the consequences.

    The following are 15 signs that Obama has already made the decision to go to war with Syria…

    #1 Syria has agreed to allow UN officials to inspect the site of the recent chemical weapons attack that killed up to 1,400 people, but a “senior U.S. official” says that such an inspection would be “too late to be credible“.

    #2 According to ABC News, the White House is saying that there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime was behind the deadly chemical weapons attack last week.

    #3 Four U.S. warships with ballistic missiles are moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. If the command is given, they will be able to rain Tomahawk cruise missiles down on targets inside Syria within minutes…

    U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

    U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military actions, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

    #4 CBS News is reporting that “the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces”.

    #5 On Saturday, Barack Obama met with his national security team to discuss what actions should be taken in Syria.

    #6 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says that Barack Obama has asked him to “prepare options for all contingencies” as far as a conflict with Syria is concerned.

    #7 After a phone conversation with British Prime Minister David Cameron about the situation in Syria, the White House announced that both leaders expressed “grave concern” about the chemical weapons attack that took place last week.

    #8 Military commanders from the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, Italy and Canada are meeting in Amman, Jordan on Sunday to coordinate plans for upcoming attacks on Syria.

    #9 According to France’s second largest newspaper, rebel forces that have been trained by the CIA have been pouring toward Damascus “since mid-August“…

    According to our information, the regime’s opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August. This attack could explain the possible use of the Syrian president to chemical weapons.

    According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked.

    #10 The U.S. military moved a significant number of F-16 fighter jets to Jordan earlier this year for military exercises, and kept them there afterward “at the request of the Jordanian government“.

    #11 According to a government document that Wikileaks released back in March 2012, NATO personnel have been on the ground inside Syria preparing for regime change since 2011.

    #12 The Times of Israel is reporting that an internal military assessment has concluded that “Washington is seriously considering a limited yet effective attack that will make it clear to the regime in Damascus that the international community will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction against Syrian civilians or any other elements”.

    #13 U.S. Senator John McCain recently said that if the U.S. military does not hit Syria, it will be like “writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons”.

    #14 According to the New York Times, “the NATO air war in Kosovo” is being studied “as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations”.

    #15 The White House has released a statement that says that the Obama administration has no plans to put “boots on the ground“, but it did not rule out any other types of military action.

    This is not a conflict that the U.S. military should be involved in.

    And we should especially not be on the side of the rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western forces that are attempting to take control of Syria.

    The terrorists that the Obama administration is backing are absolutely psychotic.  Just check out the following example from a recent article posted on the Blaze

    New video posted on YouTube purports to show the graphic murder – execution style – of three Syrian truck drivers who did nothing more than belong  to a minority faith the local Al Qaeda affiliate does not like.

    In the video, a small band of Islamist radicals with the Al Qaeda-linked ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) group is seen waving the tractor trailers off the side of an Iraqi road and then proceeds to interrogate the unsuspecting drivers about their prayer habits, trying to discover if they are Sunnis or members of the Alawite minority in Syria.

    When they “fail” the Sunni jihadis’ pop roadside quiz, the truck drivers are seated in a line in the median of the road and shot in the back of their heads firing squad style by the self-appointed law enforcers, jury, judge and executioner.

    Why in the world would the United States want to arm such people?

    Why in the world would the United States want to go to war to help such people take power?

    It is utter insanity.

    And as I mentioned earlier, most Americans are totally against getting involved.  According to a stunning new poll, 60 percent of all Americans are against U.S. military intervention in Syria, and only 9 percent are in favor of it.

    So in light of all that you have just read, why is the Obama administration so determined to help the rebels in Syria?

    UN experts to hunt for chemical shell shrapnel – as West poised to strike Syria this week

    DEBKAfile Special Report August 26, 2013, 9:51 AM (IDT)

    Tags:  chemical weapons, Syrian war, UN inspectors, US military action, Saudi, Israel,

    Chemical shell shrapnel

    Chemical shell shrapnel

    Five days after the event, a United Nations team of experts Monday, Aug. 26, start scouring a site in eastern Damascus for shrapnel left over from the poison gas shells or rockets fired by the Syrian army’s 155th Brigade last Wednesday.

    Given the low prospects of finding evidence at this late date, DEBKAfile’s sources report that the UN Secretariat and the White House in Washington agreed Sunday night that the only chance of the chemical weapons experts finding evidence of their use was to examine one of the targeted sites or injured victims. The Assad regime has only offered to open one site to the UN team, not grant them access to the approximately 2,000 victims under treatment at the three hospitals. Therefore, the inspectors’ best bet was to go for shell shrapnel first.

    Even after the alleged Syrian army’s exhaustive cleanup operation after its poison chemical attack, the UN experts still hope to turn up overlooked fragments, however microscopic.

    The US and UN also agreed that the experts would submit their initial findings as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday morning, Aug. 28. The Obama administration made clear that it was not prepared to hang around and wait for the results of more extensive tests. The assumption in Washington is that the initial UN findings would suffice as the starting signal for the US and its allies, Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, and Germany, to go forward and launch planned targeted strikes on Syria.

    Notwithstanding the official statements coming out of Washington that President Barack Obama has still not decided on his military options against Syria’s chemical attack, DEBKAfile’s sources confirm that limited, targeted Western military action is scheduled for the coming week.

    The position of the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia is less cut and dried. Riyadh doesn’t want a targeted strike but an early all-out offensive for overthrowing the Assad regime once and for all.

    This opens up the possibility of a separate Saudi-Qatari-UAE assault in Syria, coordinated with Washington, but conducted in different regions from those targeted by the US-led lineup.
    The result is potentially the pursuit of a broad-based pan-Arab offensive on the Syrian regime, alongside a surgical Western strike.
    As the moment of reckoning for his regime approaches, Bashar Assad said Monday, Aug. 26 in an interview with the Russian Izvestia that a US attack on his country would end in “failure.”
    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he was deeply concerned over possible US action in Syria.

    Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented that what is happening in Syria simply demonstrates what will happen if Iran gets even deadlier weapons. He told the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel’s “finger is on the pulse” of the situation in Syria and – if need be – its finger would move to the trigger.

    Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

    Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

    HMS Illustrious

    The Royal Navy’s helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious is currently deployed in the Mediterranean Photo: REUTERS

    By Tim Ross and Ben Farmer

    10:00PM BST 25 Aug 2013

    Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

    Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.

    As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.

    Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.

    British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.

    The possibility of such intervention will provoke demands for Parliament to be recalled this week.

    The escalation comes as a direct response to what the Government is convinced was a gas attack perpetrated by Syrian forces on a civilian district of Damascus last Wednesday.

    The Assad regime has been under mounting pressure to allow United Nations inspectors on to the site to establish who was to blame for the atrocity. One international agency said it had counted at least 355 people dead and 3,600 injured following the attack, while reports suggested the true death toll could be as high as 1,300.

    Syrian state media accused rebel forces of using chemical agents, saying some government soldiers had suffocated as a result during fighting.

    After days of delay, the Syrian government finally offered yesterday to allow a team of UN inspectors access to the area. However, Mr Hague suggested that this offer of access four days after the attack had come too late.

    “We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way and that there are no consequences for it,” he said.

    The Foreign Secretary said all the evidence “points in one direction”, to the use of illegal chemical agents by Assad regime forces.

    A Government source added that even if UN inspectors visited the site of the attack, “we would need convincing by the UN team that this was not the regime’s attack because we believe everything points to the fact that it was”.

    Officials said the Assad regime has continued bombarding the area in the days since the attack, making it likely that any evidence which could establish who was responsible will have been destroyed.

    Mr Cameron interrupted his holiday in Cornwall for talks with Mr Obama, François Hollande, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. After discussions via a secure telephone line over the weekend, all the leaders agreed on the need for a “serious response”. Government sources confirmed that military action was among the options “on the table” but said no decisions had been taken.

    The Prime Minister, however, is believed to have abandoned hope of securing any further meaningful response from the UN amid opposition from Russia.

    Labour said Parliament must be recalled if Mr Cameron was considering a military response, but Downing Street sources said this may not be necessary as the Prime Minister retained the right to act urgently if required.

    Mr Cameron will face criticism for any British military involvement from many MPs, who believe the Armed Forces are already overstretched and must not be committed to another distant conflict.

    Any retaliatory attack would be likely to be launched from the sea as the Syrian air force is judged to be strong enough to shoot down enemy jets.

    A Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine is said to be in the region while a number of warships recently left Britain for exercises in the Mediterranean.

    Commanders may also need to make use of the RAF base at Akrotiri, Cyprus for air support.

    If military action is approved, the first wave of missiles could start within a week.

    Military sources suggested the early hours of the 2011 campaign against Col Muammar Gaddafi could form a template for any operation. The Libya campaign began with a blitz of Tomahawk cruise missiles from US warships and from a British Trafalgar Class submarine.

    The Royal Navy declined to comment on the current positions of its submarines, but they regularly pass through the area on their way to the Suez Canal.

    America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.

    The Royal Navy also has its rapid response task force in the Mediterranean. The group includes two frigates and the helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious.

    Navy sources said there were no plans to change the exercises, but the group provided “strategic contingency” if needed.

History Repeats: CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anthony Gucciardi
Storyleak
August 26, 2013

As Obama continues to shove the blame on Syria’s Assad over the chemical attacks that were admitted by mainstream media months ago to be planned by the Obama administration to initiate military activity in Syria, declassified CIA files reveal that the US government has a history of assisting and facilitating chemical attacks against innocents.

saddam-hussein

Specifically, the declassified files expose the deeply nefarious relationship between the Reagan-led United States government and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. And just as Obama decries the chemical attacks within Syria that were actually launched by his administration as a pretext to military action, it is now revealed that Reagan played the same card back in 1988.

In both scenarios, we see that the administrations had no problem gassing women and children if it meant furthering their agenda.

For Obama, it means turning Syria into another Libya scenario, requiring the chemical attack in order to unleash the full military force of the United States in a ‘humane’ way through the response to the attacks. For Reagan back in 1988, it was essential to secure an Iraq victory first and foremost. And if it meant chemical attacks on Iran, then so be it. After all, the US government would simply deny it.

As Air Force Col. Rick Francona put it when speaking to Foreign Policy on the declassified documents,

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew.”

You see at this time, when the attacks started in 1983, Iran could not properly pinpoint Saddam’s Iraq in the attacks. Ultimately, it came down to the United States protecting Saddam despite knowledge of the entire event. This is history repeating once more as well, since we now see the Obama-backed Syrian rebels actually carrying out the attacks for Obama as the US government plays ignorant

Take a look at the description within the Foreign Policy report on the play of events:

“In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continueif they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.”

Sound familiar? As we now see the world call for attacks on Syria over the recent chemical attacks, it’s essential to look back at history. Even with Yahoo News reporting on the January 2013 plan for Obama to launch chemical attacks on Syria in order to launch a war campaign, it’s not enough for some people. History, however, tells us what’s truly going on today.

New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

By Max Fisher, Published: August 26 at 2:37 pmE-mail the writer

A Syrian woman stands amid the ruins of her house, which was destroyed in an airstrike by government warplanes a few days earlier. (AP Photo/Abdullah al-Yassin, File)

A Syrian woman stands amid the ruins of her house, which was destroyed in an airstrike by government warplanes a few days earlier. (AP Photo/Abdullah al-Yassin, File)

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; aRealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was taken Aug.19-23, the very same week that horrific reports emerged strongly suggesting that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, potentially killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians. If there were ever a time that Americans would support some sort of action, you’d think this would be it. But this is the lowest support for intervention since the poll began tracking opinion on the issue. The survey also found that 60 percent oppose intervention outright, with the rest, perhaps sagely, saying that they don’t know.

Strangely, 25 percent said that they support intervention if Assad uses chemical weapons. I say strangely because the United States announced way back in June that it believed Assad had done exactly this. A large share of people who answered that the United States should intervene if Assad uses chemical weapons are apparently unaware that this line has already been crossed. Presumably, some number of these people would drop their support if they realized the question was no longer hypothetical.

The United States certainly appears to beconsidering limited strikes on Syria in response to last week’s suspected chemical weapons attack. The calculus for and against is complicated enough in foreign policy terms. But the White House is also a political institution, and it will surely keep the domestic politics, which appear to oppose any intervention very strongly, well in mind.

The one video from Syria’s alleged chemical weapons attack that everyone should watch

By Max Fisher, Published: August 21 at 2:49 pmE-mail the writer

A video purportedly shows a young Syrian girl who'd survived a chemical weapons attack on Damascus. (YouTube)

A video purportedly shows a young Syrian girl who’d survived a chemical weapons attack on Damascus. (YouTube)

The alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb, where opposition activists say that more than 1,000 civilians have died from exposure to an unknown toxic gas, would be the deadliest but far from the first such incident in the country’s civil war. Still, there’s something different about this one.

The many, many photos and videos showing the attack’s apparent toll, including rooms full of dead children, can be overwhelming, of a scale and horror difficult to fully comprehend. You may have watched, or tried to watch, the video of a health worker helplessly applying a respirator to a child’s gasping mouth, or of young men sprawled across the floor of a makeshift hospital. But if you can bring yourself to see only one such video, you may wish to make it this footage, posted by Syrian activists late Tuesday:

The video, allegedly taken just a few hours after the chemical weapons incident, shows a health worker attempting to comfort a young girl who’d purportedly survived the attack and is clearly in hysterics. It’s not clear whether her behavior is a result of chemical exposure, as some speculate, or of simple terror. She says only, over and over, “I’m alive, I’m alive.”

There’s no blood or death here; this girl’s experience does not reveal the extent of Tuesday’s loss of life or necessarily show us the symptoms of chemical weapons exposure. What it does show is an experience much more common in Syria, of surviving. For all the people who are killing and dying in the country, it’s easy to forget that most Syrians are doing neither but, like both the little girl and the health worker in this video, trying to endure the suffering around them.

Images of dead bodies and convulsing chemical weapons victims represent an important part of what’s happening in Syria, but for many outside observers , they can be so shocking as to alienate. Anyone can recognize and understand a frightened child.

Update: A longer version of the video, embedded below, shows the girl identifying herself as Younma. The health worker says she’s been psychologically traumatized by the death of her parents. Younma, who begs for her parents, appears at one point to be attempting to convince the health worker that she is still alive.

The U.S. does have nonmilitary options in Syria. Here are four of them.

By Max Fisher, Published: August 23 at 9:43 amE-mail the writer

A Free Syrian Army fighter mourns at the grave of his father who was killed by what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. (REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi)

A Free Syrian Army fighter mourns at the grave of his father, who was killed by what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. (Khalil Ashawi/Reuters)

This week’s suspected chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, which Syrian activists believe was launched by the Bashar al-Assad regime and may have killed hundreds of civilians, has re-energized debate over whether there’s anything that the United States can do. Those often-painful questions are apparently now being asked even in the Oval Office, with President Obama telling CNN that his administration isconsidering a response.

Obama hinted at a struggling conversation within the White House that sounds an awful lot like the one outside it, which now, as for the last two years, has gotten stuck in the same deadlock. Some are calling for some form of military escalation while others argue that this would be counterproductive, worsening an already bad situation and sucking in the United States.

But there are a few possible options in the middle ground, between military escalation and the status quo, that could potentially improve things, if only marginally, in a conflict that’s believed to have claimed more than 100,000 lives.

The middle-ground options begin with two premises: first, that the crisis has gotten too awful for the United States to continue doing so little, and second, that military escalation would probably have more costs than benefits.

Shipping in arms would likely empower extremists and worsen long-term instability. A no-fly zone would likely change little on the ground but commit the United States to a costly, open-ended engagement. And after Afghanistan and Iraq, the prospect of full military intervention is just not on the table. But with so much suffering and instability, with things getting worse every day for Syria’s civilians and for its neighbors, the U.S. strategy of occasionally prodding the United Nations Security Council for a toothless resolution no longer looks sufficient.

You wouldn’t always know it from hearing a conversation divided between “arm the rebels” and “don’t arm the rebels,” but there are middle-ground options between military escalation and the status quo. They’re not terribly inspiring, and they’re not going to end the killing or resolve the war. But they can help make things a little bit less terrible, according to Century Foundation scholar Michael Wahid Hanna, who laid them out most recently in a May Boston Globe column.

Here are three of Hanna’s ideas for what the United States can do in Syria, followed by a fourth that I’ve added to make the list a touch more current. I e-mailed Hanna to ask whether these were still applicable; he wrote back and said they were, but that, as time goes on, “this continues to get harder.” He stressed, as he did in the Globe column, that these suggestions “can only be ameliorative in the sense that it might result in a 10 to 20 percent improvement in the overall situation.” And even then, he said, they “would still require an important shift in rhetoric that acknowledges all the ways in which the war has changed.”

Here they are:

1. More humanitarian aid, within Syria and in refugee camps

There are more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees who’ve fled the country, into camps where conditions can be awful. They’re also worsening instability in neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. They’re easier to reach than the suffering civilians within Syria, but there’s just not enough money.

The United Nations announced in June that it needs $5 billion just to cover the most basic Syrian humanitarian needs until the end of the year. The United States announced in August that it would contribute an additional $195 million to humanitarian aid, a big step but far short of what’s needed.

Of course, it’s about more than just dollars. As Hanna notes, support for local governance within rebel-controlled areas of Syria, many of which have seen local institutions completely shattered, could go a long way to helping civilians. It might also make these areas more resilient against extremist influence.

2. Intelligence-sharing with rebels

This has the benefit of bringing U.S. technology and military know-how to bear against the Assad regime, whose forces have been making recent gains, without the long-term dangers that come with arming the rebels. The United States did some of this in Libya and it seemed to help, not insignificantly.

Hanna explains: “Intelligence sharing and coordination could focus on creative targeting aimed at regime logistical networks, fuel farms, radars and air crews.” That would help erode the Assad regime’s military edge. Intelligence-sharing could also help, he writes, to “test the trustworthiness and effectiveness of fighting groups, potentially leading the way to more robust support if reliable partners are found or cultivated.”

3. Covert antiaircraft action

Hanna suggests that slipping in teams of Special Operations Forces to “employ antiaircraft missile systems to harass and deter Syrian air power” could slow Assad’s march into rebel-held areas without risking costly U.S. involvement. My caveat here would be that, after the costly political backlash in Washington against the deaths of U.S. officials in Benghazi in September 2012, it’s hard to imagine that the Obama administration is eager to risk cable news coverage of Navy SEALS killed in Syria. (To be clear, Hanna specifically suggests sanctioning covert action by regional allies, not U.S. forces.)

4. Make up with Russia (or even Iran!)

It’s no secret that U.S.-Russian relations are in dire straits, partly for lack of much mutual interest and partly due to big disagreements, such as over NSA leaker Edward Snowden. But Russia plays a big role in Syria, where it opposes any Western intervention and supports the Assad regime, and on the crucial U.N. Security Council. Swallowing hard and reaching out to Moscow might be distasteful, but a bit of U.S.-Russian goodwill could certainly help to bring around Moscow’s support, or at least chip away at its opposition.

Assad’s other major ally, of course, is Iran. But even peace-minded Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has signaled that he’s content with the status quo on Tehran’s Syria policy of backing Assad. So there’s not much promise of Iran significantly changing policy. Still, Rouhani has made it clear that he wants to try for peace with the West, which gives the United States a bit more leverage than usual — if not to reverse Tehran’s pro-Assad policy in Syria, then perhaps at least to soften it a bit.


Big Pharma invents yet another disease to sell deadly drugs

‘Shift Work Disorder’ now used to push medication that may kill you

Mike Adams
Natural News
August 26, 2013

BigBuckBigPharma

Ever heard of “shift work disorder?” It’s a new disease being played up by the pharmaceutical industry to sell drugs so dangerous that even the home page of the drug website admits the drug may kill you.

One such drug is called “Nuvigil,” sold by Cephalon, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The warning text on the Nuvigil website says:

NUVIGIL (armodafinil) Tablets [C-IV] may cause serious side effects including a serious rash or a serious allergic reaction that may affect parts of your body such as your liver or blood cells, and may result in hospitalization and be life-threatening. If you develop a skin rash, hives, sores in your mouth, blisters, swelling, peeling, or yellowing of the skin or eyes, trouble swallowing or breathing, dark urine, or fever, stop taking NUVIGIL and call your doctor right away or get emergency help.

Wow, mouth sores? Yellowing eyes? Trouble breathing? Dark urine? Hospitalization? Where do I sign up!

According to the Nuvigil website, the drug is, “a prescription medicine used to improve wakefulness in adults who experience excessive sleepiness due… shift work disorder (SWD)”

Yet another fictitious disease

SWD, of course, is a made-up “disease” now being propagandized for the sole purpose of selling drugs like Nuvigil. The pushing of fictitious disorders is generally known as “disease mongering” across the industry. The premise of so-called Shift Work Disorder is that the tiredness you feel when you stay up all night working a night shift is actually some sort of disease requiring chemical intervention.

You’re not simply tired because you’re out of sync with the sun, the fictional narrative says: you’re tired because you have a disorder! And unless you pop these pills — which might kill you — you’ll never be normal again!

This is the incessant lie of all drug advertisements: these pills will make you normal and healthy, they claim. Yet people who take their pills aren’t normal and healthy; they’re chronically diseased and suffering kidney failure, liver failure, skin disorders, sleep disorders and often dying from FDA-approved medications.

An incredible 783,000 Americans die each year from conventional medicine. Roughly 100,000 of those are killed by FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet the industry’s answer is to keep inventing more and more medications to add to the toxic burden patients are already experiencing from the half-dozen meds they’re already popping on a daily basis.

That’s the business model of Big Pharma, of course: invent a fake disease, promote the disease to push a new pill, then get as many people to take those pills as possible while government Medicaid and Medicareprograms write the checks.

The patient, in essence, is just a proxy for profit. The patient’s body is essentially a chemical dumping ground so that drug companies can collect profits while claiming to have offered some sort of “treatment” that never actually treats anything other than symptoms.

“NUVIGIL may help the sleepiness caused by these conditions, but it may not stop all of your sleepiness and does not take the place of sleep,” says the Nuvigil website. In other words, you’d probably have similar results by slamming a couple of Monster energy drinks (not that I’m recommending energy drinks, of course).

droppedImage_5

Highly addictive controlled substance

But wait, there’s more: “NUVIGIL is a federally controlled substance (C-IV), so use NUVIGIL only as directed and keep in a safe place to prevent misuse and abuse. It is against the law to sell or give NUVIGIL to another person.”

Ah, and now we get to the real heart of the matter. Nuvigil is a highly addictive controlled substance.

“NUVIGIL is a federally controlled substance [C-IV] because it has the potential to be abused or lead to dependence,” says the Nuvigil website. “Selling or giving away NUVIGIL may harm others and is against the law.”

What they mean, of course, is that you selling Nuvigil to someone else is against the law, but it’s not against the law for the drug industry to conspire with your doctor to sell you the drug. Keep this in mind when you hear about front groups like the Partnership For A Drug-Free America. Nearly all these front groups are funded by Big Pharma, and their goal is to get drugs off the streets so that people have to buy those very same drugs via prescription. It’s a turf war, and Big Pharma wants to be your dealer.

By the way, the company that makes Nuvigil is running clinical trials now in an effort to get the pill approved for treating depression and “bi-polar disorder,” yet another fictitious disease invented by the psychiatric industry to sell more high-profit pharmaceuticals that harm people. If they get their way, you’ll soon be able to buy highly addictive, class IV controlled substances to treat your “bi-polarness.”

One of the most common side effects of Nuvigil is insomnia

“In placebo-controlled studies, the most commonly observed side effects were headache, nausea, dizziness, and insomnia,” says Wikipedia, a website I don’t always trust but nevertheless tends to have useful information about drug side effects.

So wait, let me get this straight: The pill people are supposed to take when they feel too sleepy and can’t stay awake somehow causes insomnia? Say it isn’t so…

Taking the pill, then, can cause you to be unable to attain normal, healthy sleep. This causes your next night shift to be worse than the previous one, making you feel so tired you start popping extra Nuvigil. Then the hallucinations from sleep deprivation start to kick in, probably, and you find yourself playing out the opening sequence of “Fight Club” starring Ed Norton.

Keep in mind that the people who are likely to be targeted for this drug are paramedics, EMTs, doctors, nurses and other night-shift workers who need to have their heads on straight. If I’m in a late-night car accident and end up in the emergency room, I don’t want some pill-popping medical addict trying to patch me up.

Big Pharma The Real Pushers

A safer alternative: phototherapy

So what can late-night workers do to stay alert on their night shifts? The answer is found in nature: phototherapy (light therapy).

Your endocrine system has its own light sensors that control the levels of hormones like melatonin. When your body senses light, it tells you to wake up and be alert. When it senses an absence of light, it tells your body to produce hormones that wind you down and help you go to sleep.

The simple solution for late-night work shifts is therefore twofold:

1) Avoid all light sources when sleeping (wear a blindfold or have window shades that can block out nearly 100% of outside light).

2) Supplement your light before or during night shifts. This may mean purchasing and using a high-intensity phototherapy device. Sunlight is quite intense, after all. Search for “light therapy device” or “Seasonal Affective Disorder” lamp to locate such products.

In addition, having a healthy endocrine system will further support your ability to work late-night shifts without compromising your overall health. This means avoiding all hormone mimickers such as BPA and drastically reducing your exposure to heavy metals.

In the end, however, there is no replacement for natural sunlight. Your body is engineered to work in harmony with Mother Nature, and that means waking and sleeping in rhythm with the orbit and rotation of planet Earth. Working late-night shifts will inevitably accelerate your aging, suppress your immune system, worsen your moods and disrupt your hormones. No drug will reverse this. Ultimately, the best solution is to work night shifts only temporarily and return to normal waking schedules as quickly as you can.


US Set to Launch ‘Iraq, The Sequel’, in Syria

Daniel McAdams
Ron Paul Institute
August 25, 2013

If you liked the run up to the US attack on Iraq, with the lurid fictional tales of mobile chemical weapons labs and Saddam’s nukes, you will love “Iraq, The Sequel”, currently unfolding in Syria. It is everything the interventionists have been hoping for: a heady brew of Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya all rolled into one. The possibility for an infinitely more toxic conflagration is exponentially higher, to boot, adding for the interventionists much excitement to the mix.

Here is the latest:

A fourth US warship capable of launching the type of cruise missiles that turned Libya to rubble and paved the way for al-Qaeda affiliates to take control of that country is now rushing to the waters off of Syria, ready to unleash destruction. Chuck Hagel, who some antiwar commentators foolishly believed would put an end to Washington’s military adventurism, is feverishly preparing plans for President Obama to attack. The media worldwide, interventionist to the core, is pushing willing leaders in the US, France, and the UK to finally treat Syria to another devastating “liberation.”

What has prompted this sudden dramatic move just over the past few days toward a Western invasion of Syria? A pretext. A claimed chemical attack near Damascus that has produced, according to an estimate from Médecins Sans Frontières, perhaps some 300 deaths. It is unclear whether a bona fide chemical attack has taken place, and it is even more unclear who might be responsible should the attack indeed be the work of some chemical agent. Yet all of a sudden another Washington/Paris/London war is to be set in motion. How banal the triggers for war have become. Almost like a video game.

Somehow we are supposed to believe that within 72 hours after the arrival of a UN chemical weapons inspection team to assess — with the Syrian government’s cooperation — the sites of previous claimed chemical weapons attacks, that same Syrian government would launch a chemical weapon attack on civilians just miles from where the UN inspectors are staying. The UN inspectors were there on invitation from the Syrian government and that same government would launch chemicals right into their neighborhood.

Unless Assad is indeed suicidally insane, which he has given no indication of being heretofore, it quite simply makes no sense. Why risk the overt wrath of the entire rest of the world — alienating even your final allies in Iran and Russia — for so measly a gain: killing 300 civilians in a war to the death against US/Saudi/Turk supported jihadists? There is no military justification and no justification at all short of the Assad clan being a Middle Eastern form of the Manson Family. Is that the argument?

As the always thoughtful Moon of Alabama blog points out, the hypocrisy of the West is stunning. Based exclusively on reporting by the Syrian opposition itself, some sort of substance has killed anywhere from 100-360 people outside Damascus, and the West is ready for war. Meanwhile, just over a week ago, the Egyptian military massacred more than a thousand unarmed Muslim Brotherhood protestors in Egypt and the West not only did not condemn the act but has endorsed further crackdowns against supporters of the duly elected government in Egypt — in the name of democracy.

Thousands killed by the US allied Egyptian military is glossed over; dubious unconfirmed reports from highly biased sources, of a hundred or so killed in a war that has claimed by some estimates 100,000 lives, and the warships steam toward a date with destruction. Why are these 100 killed any different than those thousands of Syrians killed with CIA supplied weapons in case after documented case of Syrian insurgent atrocities? No answer.

Credible reports coming from the pro-government press in Syria that the rebels have time and time again — including just yesterday — used crude chemical agents in their fight to overthrow the government are routinely ignored by the same Western media that dutifully reports every utterance from the rebels’ own mouthpiece, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

However, the claims that chemical agents were used has come under very skeptical scrutiny from those who understand such matters. Although the press with its signature lack of curiosity is reporting breathlessly on the preparations for war (it’s good for ratings and for the profits of their military-industrial complex invested corporate owners), there are thankfully still some media outlets willing to consider those odd things called facts.

The Israeli Haaretz newspaper is one of those, and it reports (via Sic Semper Tyrannis blog) that those who know a bit about chemical warfare are unconvinced by Syrian insurgent reports of chemical weapons use.

Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination. Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”

Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in ,and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.” Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?

Tomahawk missiles may be flying by the time you read this article. But do not make the mistake of believing the lies being told to make the case for another war. This is another war based entirely on lies and the result will be the destruction of the people of Syria. Another war crime under cover of “humantiarian intervention.”

Syria: Cameron and Obama agree to military strike over chemical weapons

25 Aug 2013 00:01

The US president sealed the deal in a 40-minute phone call to the Prime Minister at his holiday retreat in Cornwall

Wounded: Injured Assad soldier is carried away

Wounded: Injured Assad soldier is carried away

Reuters

David Cameron and Barack Obama last night agreed to take military action against Syria, the Sunday People has reported.

The US president sealed the deal in a 40-minute phone call to the Prime Minister at his holiday retreat in Cornwall.

The two leaders agreed that Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad was responsible for using chemical weapons against children.

Mr Obama and Mr Cameron will discuss the military options in the next few days.

They include missile strikes, ­disabling the Syrian air force or ­enforcing a no-fly zone across the country. A No.10 source said: “The significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response.

“The PM and the President are now looking at all the options.”

But they ruled out sending in British and American ground troops.

The source said both leaders ­believe President Assad is deliberately trying to cover up the atrocity in the eastern suburbs of the capital Damascus on Wednesday that left up to 1,000 dead.

Assad forces were yesterday ­shelling the area of the nerve-gas attack to destroy evidence.

The source added: “It seems ­increasingly unlikely the United Nations investigators will be allowed to go there.” That was despite requests from UN disarmament chief Angela Kane who was in Damascus yesterday to press for access.

A US battlegroup of three ­warships in the eastern Mediterranean has been strengthened by a fourth ready to strike Syria with cruise missiles.

Materials the Syrian government claim rebels used to make chemical weapons

Materials the Syrian government claim rebels used to make chemical weapons

Getty

Materials the Syrian government claim rebels used to make chemical weapons

Materials the Syrian government claim rebels used to make chemical weapons

Getty

And the US has stationed F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missiles in Jordan in preparation for attacks.

President Obama met his national security team yesterday to discuss plans.

“That requires positioning our forces to carry out whatever options the president might choose,” said US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel. Even Iran yesterday conceded Syrians had been killed in chemical attacks but did not say who it thought was responsible.

Meanwhile the Assad regime tried to pin the blame for Wednesday’s attack on opposition groups.

Syrian state TV claimed that ­soldiers patrolling in the Damascus suburb of Jobar had found chemical weapon agents in rebel tunnels.

Russia said the nerve-gas outrage may be the work of rebels trying to provoke international action.

But Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the claims.

France joined the UK yesterday in blaming Assad for the attack.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “All the information indicates there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and Bashar al-Assad is responsible”.

TV footage showing civilians – many of them children – dead or suffering the horrific symptoms of gas poisoning shocked the world.

Aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres said hospitals it supports treated 3,600 patients with “neurotoxic symptoms” and 355 died.

Hospital staff described patients arriving with nerve gas-style symptoms including convulsions, extreme salivation, contracted pupils and sight and respiratory problems.

British defence chiefs will meet foreign counterparts in Jordan ­tomorrow to discuss options.

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syria-cameron-obama-agree-military-2218347#ixzz2czfVKw15
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary “Rebels” Revealed

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/16/2013 19:12 -0400

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

Needless to say, the official spin on events has no mention of this ulterior motive, and the popular, propaganda machine, especially from those powers supporting the Syrian “rebels” which include Israel, the US and the Arabian states tries to generate public and democratic support by portraying Assad as a brutal, chemical weapons-using dictator, in line with the tried and true script used once already in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is Russia (and to a lesser extent China: for China’s strategic interests in mid-east pipelines, read here), which has been portrayed as the main supporter of the “evil” Assad regime, and thus eager to preserve the status quo without a military intervention. Such attempts may be for naught especially with the earlier noted arrival of US marines in Israel, and the imminent arrival of the Russian Pacific fleet in Cyprus (which is a stone throw away from Syria) which may catalyze a military outcome sooner than we had expected.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.

From the FT:

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

In dozens of interviews with the FT conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.

Just as Egypt and Libya had their CIA Western-funded mercenaries fighting the regime, so Qatar is paying for its own mercenary force.

The small state with a gargantuan appetite is the biggest donor to the political opposition, providing generous refugee packages to defectors (one estimate puts it at $50,000 a year for a defector and his family) and has provided vast amounts of humanitarian support.

In September, many rebels in Syria’s Aleppo province received a one off monthly salary of $150 courtesy of Qatar. Sources close to the Qatari government say total spending has reached as much as $3bn, while rebel and diplomatic sources put the figure at $1bn at most.

For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels who overthrew Muammer Gaddafi in 2011.

That, sadly, is not even close to half the story. Recall from Qatar: Oil Rich and Dangerous, posted nearly a year ago, which predicted all of this:

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested?  A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.

It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets.  In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.

Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG.  The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.

A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe.  The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income.  Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas.  Only Al-Assad is in the way.

Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood.  It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime.  Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.

A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad.  Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center.  “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.

The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term.  At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields.  In any case, Al-Assad must go.  There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.

Some more on the strategic importance of this key feeder component to the Nabucco pipeline, and why Syria is so problematic to so many powers. From 2009:

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey.Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study. It recently extended the ban for two years to 2013.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the green part of the proposed pipeline: as explained above, it simply can’t happen as long as Russia is alligned with Assad.

So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

As for the Syrian “rebels”, who else is helping them? Why the US and Israel of course. And with the Muslim Brotherhood “takeover” paradigm already tested out in Egypt, it is only a matter of time.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

Perhaps it is Putin’s turn to tell John Kerry he prefer if Qatar was not “supplying assistance to Syrian mercenaries”?

What is worse, and what is already known is that implicitly the US – that ever-vigilant crusader against Al Qaeda – is effectively also supporting the terrorist organization:

The relegation of Qatar to second place in providing weapons follows increasing concern in the West and among other Arab states that weapons it supplies could fall into the hands of an al-Qaeda-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusrah.

Yet Qatar may have bitten off more than it can chew, even with the explicit military Israeli support, and implicit from the US. Because the closer Qatar gets to establishing its own puppet state in Syria, the closer Saudi Arabia is to getting marginalized:

But though its approach is driven more by pragmatism and opportunism, than ideology, Qatar has become entangled in the polarised politics of the region, setting off a wave of scathing criticism. “You can’t buy a revolution,” says an opposition businessman.

Qatar’s support for Islamist groups in the Arab world, which puts it at odds with its peers in the Gulf states, has fuelled rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Qatar’s ruling emir, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, “wants to be the Arab world’s Islamist (Gamal) Abdelnasser,” said an Arab politician, referring to Egypt’s fiery late president and devoted pan-Arab leader.

Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition. Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.

Recent tensions over the opposition’s election of an interim prime minister who won the support of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has also driven Saudi Arabia to tighten its relationship to the political opposition, a job it had largely left in the hands of Qatar.

What Saudi Arabia wants is not to leave the Syrian people alone, but to install its own puppet regime so it has full liberty to dictate LNG terms to Qatar, and subsequently to Europe.

Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar’s state minister for foreign affairs, who handles its Syrian policy, dismissed talk of rivalry with the Saudis and denied allegations that Qatar’s support for the rebels has splintered Syria’s opposition and weakened nascent institutions.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said every move Qatar has made, has been in conjunction with the Friends of Syria group of Arab and western nations, not alone. “Our problem in Qatar is that we don’t have a hidden agenda so people start fixing you one,” he says.

Sadly, when it comes to the US (and of course Israel), it does have a very hidden agenda: one that involves lying to its people about what any future intervention is all about, and the fabrication of narrative about chemical weapons and a bloody regime hell bent on massacring every man, woman and child from the “brave resistance.” What they all fail to mention is that all such “rebels” are merely paid for mercenaries of the Qatari emir, whose sole interest is to accrue even more wealth even if it means the deaths of thousands of Syrians in the process.

A bigger read through of the events in Syria reveals an even more complicated web: one that has Qatar facing off against Syria, with both using Syria as a pawn in a great natural resource chess game, and with Israel and the US both on the side of the petrodollars, while Russia and to a lesser extent China, form the counterbalancing axis and refuse to permit a wholesale overthrow of the local government which would unlock even more geopolitical leverage for the gulf states.

Up until today, we would have thought that when push comes to shove, Russia would relent. However, with the arrival of a whole lot of submarines in Cyprus, the games just got very serious. After all the vital interests of Gazprom – perhaps the most important “company” in the world – are suddenly at stake.

Finally, one wonders just what President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan were really talking about behind the scenes.

Putin Responds: May “Reinforce Naval Grouping In Mediterranean” Following US Buildup

Zero Hedge
August 25, 2013

Newton’s third law strikes again.

Yesterday, when describing the latest US developments in the Syrian “liberation” and “WMD elimination” we pointed out that the “use of war as a culmination point to end a depression is nothing new. Just look at the first Great Depression. And just like then, the only cost to perpetuate the myth of the Keynesian and monetarist religion and the pillaged wealth of the 0.01% status quo elite, will be a few hundred thousand innocent men, women and children. Or, as they are known in the Beltway, collateral damage. That is, unless, Putin decides to retaliate.

Moments ago Interfax reported that Russia is starting to pre-emptively, for now, retaliate.

More from Interfax:

Russia can increase its military presence in the Mediterranean in the case of the possible enlargement of the U.S. naval grouping in the region in the event of the aggravation of the situation in Syria, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Leonid Ivashov believes.

“Russia can increase its naval grouping in the Mediterranean as a reply measure. I think that nothing else remains to prevent the development of the factor of aggression,” he said to Interfax-AVN on Saturday commenting on media reports of the possible increase in U.S. naval presence in the Mediterranean.

In his opinion, Russia should point out to the world the most crying violations of the UN Charter concerning Egypt and especially Syria.

“We should be speaking more strongly of noninterference in the internal affairs of Syria,” Ivashov said.

He said that deliveries of Russian defense systems to the Syrian armed forces could become a lever of influencing the United States and of averting the threat of an attack on Syria.

Will Obama’s misreading of the “New Normal” geopolitical balance of power, in which America is rapidly relegating itself from global superpower status and in which Putin most certainly does not see himself as inferior to the US, yet in which there is no actual game theoretical winner if everyone defects (but lots and lots of losers, except for the Fed) force America into a milltary confrontation from which there is no easy and simple way out?

We will find out over the next several days.

* * *

If there is still anyone confused about what the true underlying dynamics behind the “Syrian” question are, we urge you to read this.

* * *

Finally, due to popular demand here is Barack Obama in 2009 with the Nobel Peace Prize medal and diploma

“Doctors” Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
August 25, 2013

The “evidence” upon which the West is propping up its narrative of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians hinges so far entirely on claims made by “Doctors Without Borders.” In the New York Times article, “Signs of Chemical Attack Detailed by Aid Group,” it is reported:

An international aid group said Saturday that medical centers it supported near the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus received more than 3,000 patients showing symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic nerve agents on the morning of the reported attack.

Of those, 355 died, said the group, Doctors Without Borders.

The statement is the first issued by an international organization working in Syria about the attack on Wednesday in the suburbs northeast of Damascus, the capital.

While it is often described by the Western media as “independent,” nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, Doctors Without Borders is fully funded by the very same corporate financier interests behind Wall Street and London’s collective foreign policy, including regime change in Syria and neighboring Iran. Doctors Without Borders’ own annual report (2010 report can be accessed here), includes as financial donors, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, and a myriad of other corporate-financier interests. Doctors Without Borders also features bankers upon its Board of Advisers including Elizabeth Beshel Robinson of Goldman Sachs.

Complicating further Doctors Without Borders so-called “independ” and “aid” claims is the fact that their medical facilities are set up in terrorist held regions of Syria, especially along Syria’s northern border with NATO-member Turkey. In an interview with NPR, Doctors Without Borders’ Stephen Cornish revealed the nature of his organization’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, where he explains that aid is being sent to regions outside of the Syrian government’s control, and that his organization is in fact setting up facilities in these areas. Cornish admits [emphasis added]:

Over the past months, we’ve had a surgery that was opened inside a cave. We’ve had another that was opened in a chicken farm, a third one in a house. And these structures, we’ve tried to outfit them as best as we can with enough modern technology and with full medical teams. They originally were dealing mainly with combatant injuries and people who were – civilians who were directly affected by the conflict.

In other words, the Wall Street-funded organization is providing support for militants armed and funded by the West and its regional allies, most of whom are revealed to be foreign fighters, affiliated with or directly belonging to Al Qaeda and its defacto political wing, the Muslim Brotherhood. This so-called “international aid” organization is in actuality yet another cog in the covert military machine being turned against Syria and serves the role as a medical battalion.

The “hospitals” in Damascus being supported by Doctors Without Borders are in areas now under threat of being retaken by government forces, and it’s these facilities that the Western media is drawing on for “evidence” that first, a chemical attack took place, and second, that it was the government who carried it out. What the Western media is not telling their audiences, is that even Doctors Without Borders admits their own team members are not present at these medical facilities and have only been sending supplies to them – in other words, this evidence is hearsay emanating from terrorist held areas, merely dressed up and spun as actual evidence from a so-called “reputable” international organization.

In Doctors Without Borders’ own official statement, it was reported that:

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.

It was further explained that:

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.

It is most likely hoped that the vast majority of those reading their news simply take the compromised Western media for their word and never bother to read what Doctors Without Borders actually is doing in Syria or what they even really said regarding the most recent incident. A similar routine was used in Libya where Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International spent their legitimacy attempting to create a pretext for Western military intervention there.

Americans Strongly Oppose U.S. Intervention In Syria’s Civil War

Washington’s Blog
August 25, 2013

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds:

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed….

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

***

[Only] 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it.

***

The polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans’ resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.

The results – and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June – suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad’s regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

***

In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed.

***

The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.

In other words, Americans might finally be souring on the whole idea of “humanitarian war”.

Given the substantial doubt among experts regarding the claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people, and the desire of the American people to stay out of another war even if Syria did use such weapons, the U.S. government’s saber rattling appears to be further alienating a population already skeptical due to the NSA spying scandal and Iraq war.

Thousands Of Companies Have Been Handing Over Your Personal Data To The NSA


Thousands Of Companies Have Been Handing Over Your Personal Data To The NSA

mural_logos_24

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
June 15, 2013

It isn’t just Internet and phone companies that are giving your personal information to the U.S. government.  According to an astounding reportby Bloomberg, “four people familiar with the process” say that “makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies” and a whole host of other sources are handing over your personal data to federal agencies.  The truth is that there is so much more to this NSA snooping scandal than the American people know so far.  When U.S. Representative Loretta Sanchez said that what Edward Snowden had revealed was “just the tip of the iceberg“, she wasn’t kidding.  The U.S. government is trying to collect as much information about everyone on the planet as it possibly can.  And this incredibly powerful intelligence machine is not going to go away just because a few activists get upset about it.  The United States government spendsmore than 80 billion dollars a year on intelligence programs.  Those that have spent their careersconstructing this monolithic intelligence apparatus are doing to defend it to the bitter end, as will the corporate partners in the private sector that rake in enormous profits thanks to big fat government contracts.  But if the American people don’t stand up and demand change now, it is going to be a signal to those doing the snooping that they can push the envelope even more because nobody is going to stop them.

So why are thousands of companies handing over your personal data to the NSA?  Well, according to Bloomberg they are getting things in return…

Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.

These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. The role of private companies has come under intense scrutiny since his disclosure this month that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents’ telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google Inc (GOOG). and other Internet companies under court order.

Thanks to the recent revelations by Edward Snowden, much of the focus so far has been on the information that the NSA gets from Internet and telecommunications companies, but apparently government agencies collect information about all of us from a vast array of sources…

Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computersof its adversaries.

Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (0112917D), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.

We have become a “surveillance society”, and this is exactly the sort of thing that the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect us against.  The government is only supposed to invade our privacy and investigate us when there is probable cause to do so.

But now the government is trying to collect as much information about all of us as it possibly can even though the vast majority of us will never be charged with any crime.

There seems to be no limit when it comes to how much personal data the government wants to gather on all of us.  As I have written about previously, the chief technology officer at the CIA says that they “fundamentally try to collect everything and hang onto it forever.”

And this does not just apply to American citizens.  The U.S. government is compiling data on everyone on the planet.  And since such a high percentage of Internet traffic flows through U.S. networks and U.S. companies, that gives the U.S. intelligence community a tremendous “home-field advantage”.  The following is from a recent piece authored by Ronald Deibert, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto…

While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not.

For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global tier 1 telecommunications companies are American — companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon.

The social media services that many of us take for granted are also mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world’s Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy.

But what is really the point of all of this intelligence gathering?

Is it to make us a little bit safer?

If so, we are making a massive mistake.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote the following: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Are you willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights in order to feel a little more safe?

I hope not.

The U.S. Constitution never guaranteed us safety.  But it is supposed to guarantee our privacy.

Fortunately, it appears that at this point public opinion is very much against all of the snooping that the government has been doing.  According to the Guardian, most of the recent surveys that have been done are coming up with very consistent results…

Thursday, the Guardian released a poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday nights by Public Policy Polling looking at America’s reaction to the National Security Agency (NSA) controversy. The public appears to be reacting negatively to the revelations – and it seems to be hurting President Obama.

We found 50% of American voters believe the NSA should not be collecting telephone or internet records, compared to the 44% who think they should. The results hold even when respondents were told that the data the government is collecting is “metadata” (and not necessarily actual content of communications).

These results are consistent with a CBS News poll,Fox News poll, and YouGov survey that showed only 38%, 32%, and 35% of Americans respectively approved of phone record collection in order to reduce the chance of a terrorist attack. A Gallup poll was consistent with these, showing only 37% approved monitoring of Americans’ phone and internet use.

And Americans also seem to be very suspicious about what the government will do with our personal data once they have it.

In fact, according to a new Rasmussen survey, 57 percent of Americans believe that the government will use the information that it collects “to harass political opponents”.

And of course many of the recent scandals that have erupted this year involve the government harassing political opponents.  We have seen this with the IRS scandal, and we have seen this with the spying on reporters scandal.

Just this week it was reported that CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has had her computers hacked repeatedly.  If you are not familiar with Attkisson, she is the one reporter in the mainstream media that has been relentless when it has come to pursuing the Operation Fast and Furious and Benghazi stories.  Now we are learning that a “sophisticated” intruder hacked into her computer “on multiple occasions” in late 2012

CBS News announced Friday that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by “an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,” confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.

CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News “has determined through forensic analysis” that “Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from all of these scandals, Barack Obama is starting a war with Syria.

In this war, we are actually going to be helping al-Qaeda rebels that arebeheading Christians to take over Syria.

If you aren’t aware of the deep connection between al-Qaeda and the Syrian rebels, just read the recent USA Today article entitled “Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda” or any of the dozens of other articles that you can find on the Internet that document this very clearly.

And the sick thing is that a large number of Republicans are actually applauding Barack Obama for teaming up with al-Qaeda.

Has it suddenly become “conservative” to help al-Qaeda?

What in the world is going on?

And you know what?

The truth was that our troops were in position long before Barack Obama made his “stunning announcement” on Thursday.  In fact, it hasbeen confirmed that U.S. troops are already in Jordan along the Syrian border.

And could this conflict with Syria actually set the stage for a much larger conflict?

The Russians have been providing “mortars, light artillery, antiaircraft guns, antitank weapons and ammunition” to the Syrian government and they have loudly denounced the latest moves by the Obama administration.

Yes, the Assad government is horrible, but what Obama is doing in Syria is a terrible, terrible mistake.

If the U.S. takes down the Assad government, forces loyal to al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists are going to take over and we will have made Russia and China very angry.  If the U.S. is unsuccessful in removing the Assad government, it will be considered a crushing defeat for the United States.

Either way, we lose.

 

Democrats and Republicans Agree: America’s Stasi Surveillance State is a Good Thing

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2013

On Friday Rasmussen Reports released a poll finding that nearly 60 percent of Americans think the government will use data illegally collected by the NSA to go after political opponents. It also found that there “is little public support for the sweeping and unaccountable nature of the National Security Agency surveillance program along with concerns about how the data will be used.”

If we accept the validity of this latest poll – or any establishment poll – it would be fair to say most Americans understand that surveillance is not used to protect us from foreign enemies in the fake war on terrorism.

Earlier in the week this is exactly what Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, and the Republican senator from Georgia Saxby Chambliss, told us. Rogers said that converting the United States into a high-tech version of Stasi Germany has resulted in “changes we can already see being made by the folks who wish to do us harm, and our allies harm.” Rogers added that recent revelations by Booz Allen Hamilton analyst Edward Snowden “make it harder to track bad guys trying to harm U.S. citizens in the United States.”

The American people might be opposed to the NSA surveillance program, but there is overwhelming consensus in favor of it in Washington. The Democrat intelligentsia in the Mockingbird media, especially the Obama partisans, have lined up in favor of trampling on the rights of American citizens.

“I’ve been amazed and disappointed for a long time at how the most slavishly partisan media Democrats who pretended to care so much about these issues when doing so helped undermine George Bush are now the loudest apologists and cheerleaders for these very same policies,” Glenn Greenwald, who broke the NSA story, said on Tuesday. “If they started a club called Liberal Pundits to Defend the National Security State, no auditorium in the country would be large enough to accommodate them.”

This was underscored on Monday when another poll showed that Democrats love the Stasi state. Support for tyranny depends on what side of the establishment party is in the White House. “With President Obama in the White House, Democrats stand in support of the NSA’s methods, 49% to 40% in the Gallupsurvey. Republicans were opposed 63% to 32%. When President George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were supportive of government surveillance efforts and Democrats opposed,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

This is not surprising, writes Justin Raimondo. “Now it is the liberals’ turn to justify the demolition of the Constitution, and especially to give the final push to take down that once-mighty and now greatly eroded bulwark against tyranny, the Bill of Rights. Anyone who is surprised by the alacrity with which they have taken up this task is unfamiliar with the history of American liberalism and the left in general.”

This takes us back to the Rasmussen Reports poll cited above. Most Americans know the surveillance state is used against political enemies, not phantasmal terrorists in caves. They understand that whatever side of the party is in power, it will use surveillance and dirty tricks to undermine the competition. In regard to enemies beyond the walls and out in the political hinterland, it will use the surveillance apparatus like a cudgel to destroy them. History is replete with examples of this from the FBI’s COINTELPRO and the CIA’s Operation CHAOS back to the dawning days of the nation when Federalist John Adams attempted to sabotage the Bill of Rights by signing the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 into law. (See Timeline of US Govt. Surveillance and Spying for more information on how the surveillance state has been used to harass and persecute political opponents.)

Rush Limbaugh may say the real danger is Obama, but that is a diversion. In early 2006, Limbaugh characterized illegal surveillance under Bush as “intercepts of the enemy” and said opponents were supporting an “al-Qaeda bill of rights.” Democrats and Republicans will continue to play political football in a larger game shaped by the establishment’s false left-right paradigm. Both support what the NSA is doing and the Stasi state will grow and flourish so long as Democrats and Republicans share power.

We are now very close to witnessing the final extinction of the Bill of Rights. This has been the goal of one-world totalitarians for some time. Over the last few years, we have documented the effort by the globalist intelligentsia – led by globalist operative Fareed Zakaria – to destroy the Constitution.

The NSA spy grid is designed to monitor and undermine the political activity of those of us who want to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda, a largely imaginary terrorist group that only surfaces in the United States due to a concerted patsy and public propaganda program led by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

 

The Next NSA Spying Shoe to Drop: “Pre-Crime” Artificial Intelligence

Washington’s Blog
June 17, 2013

NSA spying whistleblower Edward Snowden’s statements have been verified.    Reporter Glenn Greenwald has promised numerous additional disclosures from Snowden.

What other revelations are coming?

We reported in 2008:

A new article by investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham reveals, a governmental unit operating in secret and with no oversight whatsoever is gathering massive amounts of data on every American and running artificial intelligence software to predict each American’s behavior, including “what the target will do, where the target will go, who it will turn to for help”.

The same governmental unit is responsible for suspending the Constitution and implementing martial law in the event that anything is deemed by the White House in its sole discretion to constitute a threat to the United States. (this is formally known as implementing “Continuity of Government” plans). [Background here.]

As Ketcham’s article makes clear, these same folks and their predecessors have been been busy dreaming up plans to imprison countless “trouble-making” Americans without trial in case of any real or imagined emergency.  What kind of Americans? Ketcham describes it this way:

“Dissidents and activists of various stripes, political and tax protestors, lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless, average people.”

Do we want the same small group of folks who have the power to suspend the Constitution, implement martial law, and imprison normal citizens to also be gathering information on all Americans and running AI programs to be able to predict where American citizens will go for help and what they will do in case of an emergency? Don’t we want the government to — um, I don’t know — help us in case of an emergency?

Bear in mind that the Pentagon is also running an AI program to see how people will react to propaganda and to government-inflicted terror. The program is called Sentient World Simulation:

“U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies.Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of ‘learned helplessness’ in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)

Yank a country’s water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next.

The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet.”

The continuity of government folks’ AI program and the Pentagon’s AI program may or may not be linked, but they both indicate massive spying and artificial intelligence in order to manipulate the American public, to concentrate power, to take away the liberties and freedoms of average Americans, and — worst of all — to induce chaos in order to achieve these ends.

PBS Nova reported in 2009:

The National Security Agency (NSA) is developing a tool that George Orwell’s Thought Police might have found useful: an artificial intelligence system designed to gain insight into what people are thinking.

With the entire Internet and thousands of databases for a brain, the device will be able to respond almost instantaneously to complex questions posed by intelligence analysts. As more and more data is collected—through phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks like Facebook and MySpace, GPS tracks, cell phone geolocation, Internet searches, Amazon book purchases, even E-Z Pass toll records—it may one day be possible to know not just where people are and what they are doing, but what and how they think.

The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Known as Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence” [which is run by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)], part of the new M Square Research Park in College Park, Maryland. A mammoth two million-square-foot, 128-acre complex, it is operated in collaboration with the University of Maryland. “Their budget is classified, but I understand it’s very well funded,” said Brian Darmody, the University of Maryland’s assistant vice president of research and economic development, referring to IARPA. “They’ll be in their own building here, and they’re going to grow. Their mission is expanding.”

***

In a 2004 pilot project, a mass of data was gathered from news stories taken from theNew York Times, the AP news wire, and the English portion of the Chinese Xinhua news wire covering 1998 to 2000. Then, 13 U.S. military intelligence analysts searched the data and came up with a number of scenarios based on the material. Finally, using those scenarios, an NSA analyst developed 50 topics, and in each of those topics created a series of questions for Aquaint’s computerized brain to answer. “Will the Japanese use force to defend the Senkakus?” was one. “What types of disputes or conflict between the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and Hong Kong residents have been reported?” was another. And “Who were the participants in this spy ring, and how are they related to each other?” was a third. Since then, the NSA has attempted to build both on the complexity of the system—more essay-like answers rather than yes or no—and on attacking greater volumes of data.

“The technology behaves like a robot, understanding and answering complex questions,” said a former Aquaint researcher. “Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the most memorable character, HAL 9000, having a conversation with David. We are essentially building this system. We are building HAL.” A naturalized U.S. citizen who received her Ph.D. from Columbia, the researcher worked on the program for several years but eventually left due to moral concerns. “The system can answer the question, ‘What does X think about Y?’” she said. “Working for the government is great, but I don’t like looking into other people’s secrets.

A supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as “What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections?” would be very useful for the public. But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA—absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans—could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare. “We must not forget that the ultimate goal is to transfer research results into operational use,” said Aquaint project leader John Prange, in charge of information exploitation for IARPA.

Once up and running, the database of old newspapers could quickly be expanded to include an inland sea of personal information scooped up by the agency’s warrantless data suction hoses. Unregulated, they could ask it to determine which Americans might likely pose a security risk—or have sympathies toward a particular cause, such as the antiwar movement, as was done during the 1960s and 1970s. The Aquaint robospy might then base its decision on the type of books a person purchased online, or chat room talk, or websites visited—or a similar combination of data. Such a system would have an enormous chilling effect on everyone’s everyday activities—what will the Aquaint computer think if I buy this book, or go to that website, or make this comment? Will I be suspected of being a terrorist or a spy or a subversive?

World Net Daily’s Aaron Klein reported earlier this month:

In February, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Massachusetts-based multinational corporation, Raytheon – the world’s fifth largest defense contractor – had developed a “Google for Spies” operation.

Herald reporter Ryan Gallagher wrote that Raytheon had “secretly developed software capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behavior by mining data from social networking websites” like Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare.

The software is called RIOT, or Rapid Information Overlay Technology.

Raytheon told the Herald it has not sold RIOT to any clients but admitted that, in 2010, it had shared the program’s software technology with the U.S. government as part of a “joint research and development effort … to help build a national security system capable of analyzing ‘trillions of entities’ from cyberspace.”

In April, RIOT was reportedly showcased at a U.S. government and industry national security conference for secretive, classified innovations, where it was listed under the category “big data – analytics, algorithms.”

Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project,argued …  that among the many problems with government large-scale analytics of social network information “is the prospect that government agencies will blunderingly use these techniques to tag, target and watchlist people coughed up by programs such as RIOT, or to target them for further invasions of privacy based on incorrect inferences.”

“The chilling effects of such activities,” he concluded, “while perhaps gradual, would be tremendous.”

Ginger McCall, attorney and director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Open Government program, told NBC in February, “This sort of software allows the government to surveil everyone.

“It scoops up a bunch of information about totally innocent people. There seems to be no legitimate reason to get this, other than that they can.”

As for RIOT’s ability to help catch terrorists, McCall called it “a lot of white noise.”  [True … Big data doesn’t work to keep us safe.]

The London Guardian further obtained a four-minute video that shows how the RIOT software uses photographs on social networks. The images, sometimes containing latitude and longitude details, are “automatically embedded by smartphones within so-called ‘exif header data.’

RIOT pulls out this information, analyzing not only the photographs posted by individuals, but also the location where these images were taken,” the Guardian reported.
Such sweeping data collection and analysis to predict future activity may further explain some of what the government is doing with the phone records of millions of Verizon customers. [Background here.]

***

“In the increasingly popular language of network theory, individuals are “nodes,” and relationships and interactions form the “links” binding them together; by mapping those connections, network scientists try to expose patterns that might not otherwise be apparent,” reported the Times.[Background here.]

In February 2006, more than a year after Obama was sworn as a U.S. senator, it was revealed the “supposedly defunct” Total Information Awareness data-mining and profiling program had been acquired by the NSA.

The Total Information Awareness program was first announced in 2002 as an early effort to mine large volumes of data for hidden connections.

Aaron Klein reported last week that Snowden might have worked at the NSA’s artificial intelligence unit at the University of Maryland:

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations, told the London Guardian newspaper that he previously worked as a security guard for what the publication carefully described as “one of the agency’s covert facilities at the University of Maryland.”

***

Brian Ullmann, the university’s assistant vice president for marketing and communications, was asked for comment. He would not address the query, posed twice to his department by KleinOnline, about whether the NSA operates covert facilities in conjunction with the university.

Ullmann’s only comment was to affirm that Snowden was employed as a security guard at the university’s Center for the Advanced Study of Languages in 2005.

This is especially concerning given that the people who created the NSA spying program in the first place say that information gained through spying will be used to frame Americans that the government takes a dislike to.