Latest Entries »


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.”


Fukushima radiation levels ’18 times higher’ than thought

Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Toshimitsu Motegi (2nd R-red helmet) inspecting contamination water tanks

Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi inspected the site on Monday

Radiation levels around Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant are 18 times higher than previously thought, Japanese authorities have warned.

Last week the plant’s operator reported radioactive water had leaked from a storage tank into the ground.

It now says readings taken near the leaking tank on Saturday showed radiation was high enough to prove lethal within four hours of exposure.

The plant was crippled by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had originally said the radiation emitted by the leaking water was around 100 millisieverts an hour.

However, the company said the equipment used to make that recording could only read measurements of up to 100 millisieverts.

The new recording, using a more sensitive device, showed a level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour.

The new reading will have direct implications for radiation doses received by workers who spent several days trying to stop the leak last week, the BBC’s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports from Tokyo.

In addition, Tepco says it has discovered a leak on another pipe emitting radiation levels of 230 millisieverts an hour.

The plant has seen a series of water leaks and power failures.

The 2011 tsunami knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which melted down.

The damage from the tsunami has necessitated the constant pumping of water to cool the reactors.

This is believed to be the fourth major leak from storage tanks at Fukushima since 2011 and the worst so far in terms of volume.

After the latest leak, Japan’s nuclear-energy watchdog raised the incident level from one to three on the international scale measuring the severity of atomic accidents, which has a maximum of seven.

Experts have said the scale of water leakage may be worse than officials have admitted.

Graphic showing the location of the pools of radioactive water found at the Fukushima nuclear plant

 

Fukushima leak is ‘much worse than we were led to believe’

Matt McGrathBy Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes travels to the source of the water being contaminated by Fukushima

A nuclear expert has told the BBC that he believes the current water leaks at Fukushima are much worse than the authorities have stated.

Mycle Schneider is an independent consultant who has previously advised the French and German governments.

He says water is leaking out all over the site and there are no accurate figures for radiation levels.

Meanwhile the chairman of Japan’s nuclear authority said that he feared there would be further leaks.

The ongoing problems at the Fukushima plant increased in recent days when the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) admitted that around 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water had leaked from a storage tank on the site.

Moment of crisis

The Japanese nuclear energy watchdog raised the incident level from one to three on the international scale that measures the severity of atomic accidents.

“Start Quote

It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking out from the cracks all over the place”

Mycle SchneiderNuclear consultant

This was an acknowledgement that the power station was in its greatest crisis since the reactors melted down after the tsunami in 2011.

But some nuclear experts are concerned that the problem is a good deal worse than either Tepco or the Japanese government are willing to admit.

They are worried about the enormous quantities of water, used to cool the reactor cores, which are now being stored on site.

Some 1,000 tanks have been built to hold the water. But these are believed to be at around 85% of their capacity and every day an extra 400 tonnes of water are being added.

"The quantities of water they are dealing with are absolutely gigantic," said Mycle Schneider, who has consulted widely for a variety of organisations and countries on nuclear issues.

"What is the worse is the water leakage everywhere else – not just from the tanks. It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking out from the cracks all over the place. Nobody can measure that.

The increase in storage of radioactive water at the Fukushima nuclear plant

Satellite images show how the number of water storage tanks has increased in the past two years. The tanks store contaminated water that has been used to cool the reactors.

"It is much worse than we have been led to believe, much worse," said Mr Schneider, who is lead author for the World Nuclear Industry status reports.

At news conference, the head of Japan’s nuclear regulation authority Shunichi Tanaka appeared to give credence to Mr Schneider’s concerns, saying that he feared there would be further leaks.

“We should assume that what has happened once could happen again, and prepare for more. We are in a situation where there is no time to waste," he told reporters.

The lack of clarity about the water situation and the continued attempts by Tepco to deny that water was leaking into the sea has irritated many researchers.

Dr Ken Buesseler is a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has examined the waters around Fukushima.

"It is not over yet by a long shot, Chernobyl was in many ways a one week fire-explosive event, nothing with the potential of this right on the ocean."

"We’ve been saying since 2011 that the reactor site is still leaking whether that’s the buildings and the ground water or these new tank releases. There’s no way to really contain all of this radioactive water on site."

"Once it gets into the ground water, like a river flowing to the sea, you can’t really stop a ground water flow. You can pump out water, but how many tanks can you keep putting on site?"

Several scientists also raised concerns about the vulnerability of the huge amount of stored water on site to another earthquake.

Graphic of water tank contamination at Fukushima

Water from the storage tanks has seeped into the groundwater and then into the sea. Efforts to use a chemical barrier to prevent sea contamination have not worked.

New health concerns

The storage problems are compounded by the ingress of ground water, running down from the surrounding hills. It mixes with radioactive water leaking out of the basements of the reactors and then some of it leaches into the sea, despite the best efforts of Tepco to stem the flow.

Some of the radioactive elements like caesium that are contained in the water can be filtered by the earth. Others are managing to get through and this worries watching experts.

"Our biggest concern right now is if some of the other isotopes such as strontium 90 which tend to be more mobile, get through these sediments in the ground water," said Dr Buesseler.

"They are entering the oceans at levels that then will accumulate in seafood and will cause new health concerns."

There are also worries about the spent nuclear fuel rods that are being cooled and stored in water pools on site. Mycle Schneider says these contain far more radioactive caesium than was emitted during the explosion at Chernobyl.

"There is absolutely no guarantee that there isn’t a crack in the walls of the spent fuel pools. If salt water gets in, the steel bars would be corroded. It would basically explode the walls, and you cannot see that; you can’t get close enough to the pools," he said.

The "worsening situation" at Fukushima has prompted a former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland to call for the withdrawal of Tokyo’s Olympic bid.

In a letter to the UN secretary general, Mitsuhei Murata says the official radiation figures published by Tepco cannot be trusted. He says he is extremely worried about the lack of a sense of crisis in Japan and abroad.

This view is shared by Mycle Schneider, who is calling for an international taskforce for Fukushima.

"The Japanese have a problem asking for help. It is a big mistake; they badly need it."

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Japan’s nuclear watchdog has said the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is facing a new "emergency" caused by a build-up of radioactive groundwater.

In the mountains above the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, rainfall collects and flows down to the Pacific – through highly contaminated ground.

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority says a barrier built to prevent that water reaching the ocean has already been breached, while tanks built to contain it are nearly full.

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports from Fukushima.


Anti-war protesters to cop: We don’t need a permit we have the constitution

Joshua Cook
BenSwann.com
September 1, 2013

On Saturday, thousands of citizens throughout the nation protested military strikes against Syria. A group of activists assembled at the busiest intersection in Spartanburg, S.C. to wave signs and bring awareness to the ongoing push to strike Syria by the Obama administration. A local police officer told them that if someone complained they would have to leave because they did not have a city permit. He also said that activists who continue to protest on the crosswalk would go to jail.

Many of the protestors considered this to be a violation of their 1st Amendment right and challenged the officer by asking him if they committed any crime. They also reminded the officer that they had a right to assemble on public property such as a sidewalk and did not need a permit to do so. Evan Mulch the organizer of the protest told the officer that in the future he would not apply for a permit but would let the police department know when they plan to do the next event.

One protester asked the officer, “what about our right to assembly?” The officer said, “like I said, you have to fill out a form.”

Dr. Bill Bledsoe asked the officer, “What laws am I breaking and are you arresting me?”

“No,” replied the officer. “What I was explaining to him was that you have to have a permit to assemble,” said the officer.

Bledsoe said, “you do not have to have a permit to walk across the street holding a sign.”

One protestor told the officer, “you are pledged to support the Constitution, that’s the #1 law!”

Evan Mulch the who organized the protest told the officer, “what you are conditioning us to do is to ask you for approval to be in a public place – we don’t need your approval.”


Obama Requests 15,000 Russian Troops For “Upcoming” Disaster

Posted by EU Times on Jun 27th, 2013

An unsettling report prepared by the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) circulating in the Kremlin today on the just completed talks between Russia and the United States inWashington D.C. says that the Obama regime has requested at least 15,000 Russian troops trained in disaster relief and “crowd functions” [i.e. riot control] be pre-positioned to respond to FEMA Region III during an unspecified “upcoming” disaster.

According to this report, this unprecedented request was made directly to Minister Vladimir Puchkov by US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Director Janet Napolitano who said these Russian troops would work “directly and jointly” with her Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of whose mission is to secure the continuity of the US government in the event of natural disasters or war.

Important to note, this report says, is that FEMA Region III, the area Russian troops are being requested for, includes Washington D.C. and the surrounding States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, “strongly suggesting” that the Obama regime has lost confidence in its own military being able to secure its survival should it be called upon to do so.

In his public statements, yesterday, regarding these matters Minister Puchkov stated, “We have decided that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and Russia’s Emergencies Ministry will work together to develop systems to protect people and territory from cosmic impacts,” and further noted that his meeting with DHS Director Napolitano also covered other kinds of natural emergencies, such as recent years’ extreme weather in both Russia and United States.

In this EMERCOM report, however, Minister Puchkov notes that the Russian troops being requested by the Obama regime would “more than likely” be paired with US-DHS troops who last year purchased nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition and just this past month placed and emergency order for riot gear.

As to what “upcoming disaster” the US is preparing for, this report continues, appears to be “strongly related” to last weeks assassination of American reporter Michael Hastings who was killed while attempting to reach the safety of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, and as we had reported on in our 20 June report Top US Journalist Attempting To Reach Israeli Consulate Assassinated.

Further to be noted about Hastings assassination by the Obama regime is the continued US mainstream propaganda news cover-up of it, though many freelance reporters continue to uncover the truth, such as Jim Stone whose investigation noted that the rear portion of Hastings car was blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact, which runs counter to the “official” story that this vehicle has hit a tree.

Not mentioned in this EMERCOM report is any suggestionthat Russia would comply with this request from the Obama regime, especially in light of the horrifying information being given to Russian intelligence analysts from Edward Snowden who has been labeled as the most wanted man in the world.

According to one Federal Security Services (FSB) bulletin on their continued debriefing of Snowden, and analysis of the information he has provided Russian intelligence officers, his father, Lonnie Snowden, was an officer in the US Coast Guard during the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States who had “direct knowledge” of the true events that occurred and whom the real perpetrators were.

Being directly affected by the events of 9/11, this FSB bulletin says, Snowden “self initiated” a multi-year effort to gain access to America’s top secrets, a mission which when recently completed led him to contact various international reporters, including Hastings, whom he believed could be trusted with disseminating the information he had obtained.

Though known to us directly from our Kremlin sources as to the exact connections Snowden’s information proves regarding 9/11 and both the Bush and Obama regimes, and the even more horrific event soon to come, a June 2013Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) prevents our being able to…at this time.

Likewise, and as the assassination of Hastings clearly shows, the Obama regime claims a legal right to kill anyone it so chooses without charges or trial they believe may threaten US national security, and what Snowden’s information reveals definitely falls into that category.

What can be said though, there is a critical reason billionaires all over the world have been dumping their stocks, and fast; and those who are not able to read between the lines will soon find themselves in the most dangerous situation they’ve ever encountered.

 


‘We now know Brits cannot be counted on’: White House snub as US and France prepare to strike Syria as early as TOMORROW

By ANTHONY BOND

PUBLISHED: 09:18 GMT, 31 August 2013 | UPDATED: 19:44 GMT, 31 August 2013

U.S missile strikes against Syria could start tomorrow after U.N. weapons inspectors left the war-torn country earlier than expected.

The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today fueling speculation of an imminent attack.

It came as the White House delivered an astonishing snub to Britain following Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, with sources saying David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action and that Britain ‘cannot be counted on’.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last night paved the way for war by saying the American intelligence community had ‘high confidence’ that the regime launched a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last week

But at a press conference today U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky described suggestions the team’s departure opened the window for U.S. military action as ‘grotesque’.

Scroll down for video

Strike: The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today fueling speculation of an imminent attack

Strike: The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today fueling speculation of an imminent attack

Leaving: U.N. experts arrive at the entrance of the private jet terminal at Beirut international airport Lebanon, following their departure from Syria

Leaving: U.N. experts arrive at the entrance of the private jet terminal at Beirut international airport, Lebanon, following their departure from Syria

Mr Nesirky said the team had left Syria for the Netherlands this morning ‘so that they could take the samples to the laboratories where they will be analysed’.

He said other evidence including interviews with doctors and survivors had also been collated.

The secretary general is due to be briefed further by the head of the UN chemical weapons team tomorrow but Mr Nesirky gave no timetable for when the findings would be released.

He said the mandate for the mission was to find out whether chemical weapons had been used and not who was responsible for any attack.

He said: ‘The aim of the game for the mandate is very clear and that is to ascertain whether chemical weapons were used and not by whom and that remains the mandate.’

He also rejected suggestions the the inspectors leaving the country was opening the door for US air strikes.

Departure: A Lebanese special forces policeman escorts the U.N. vehicles at Beirut international airport

Departure: A Lebanese special forces policeman escorts the U.N. vehicles at Beirut international airport

Protest: Anti-Syrian regime protesters carry a banner during a demonstration at Kafr Nabil in northern Syria

Protest: Anti-Syrian regime protesters carry a banner during a demonstration at Kafr Nabil in northern Syria

He said: ‘I have seen all kinds of reporting suggesting that the departure of the chemical weapons team somehow opens a window for military action of some kind.

SYRIA EXPECTING ATTACK ‘AT ANY MOMENT’

Syria is expecting ‘an attack at any moment’, a security official has said.

As the UN chemical weapons inspectors left the country and arrived in the Netherlands to begin investigating evidence, a Syrian official has said the regime is ‘ready to retilitate’.

The official told AFP: ‘We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment.’

‘Frankly, that’s grotesque, and it’s also an affront to the more than 1,000 staff, U.N. staff, who are on the ground in Syria delivering humanitarian aid and who will continue to deliver critical aid.’

Nesirky repeated that the inspectors would return later to investigate several other alleged poison gas attacks.

He said the UN mission was ‘uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons based directly on evidence collected on the ground’.

Britain has been left sidelined in any U.S military action against Syria following the humiliating Commons defeat  – placing strain on the ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.

Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain during his speech and instead lavished praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France – which looks likely to join the U.S in a missile strike.

He paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the U.S in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad. He also praised Australia and even Turkey for their support.

Worried: A family leave Syria today over fears the U.S could launch a missile strike

Worried: A family leave Syria today over fears the U.S could launch a missile strike

Leaving: Syrian families undergo security checks as they cross into Lebanon from Syria today

Leaving: Syrian families undergo security checks as they cross into Lebanon from Syria today

In a passionate speech in Washington, he urged the world to act as he warned ‘history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’.

President Barack Obama yesterday said he is weighing ‘limited and narrow’ action as the administration put the chemical weapons death toll at 1,429 people – far more than previous estimates – including more than 400 children.

Downing Street insisted the U.S special relationship was still intact following a telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Obama.

However, White House sources told The Times that David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action.

Another source with knowledge of how the White House reacted to Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, said: ‘It came as a real shock to them. They now know the Brits, because of their political system, cannot be counted on.’

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, expressed his frustration. He said: ‘I’m disappointed , because we have a very close working relationship with the U.S.

‘It is a difficult time for our Armed Forces – having prepared to go into this action  – to then be stood down and have to watch while the U.S acts alone or perhaps acts with France.’

Decision time: President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House

Decision time: President Barack Obama meets with his national security staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House

French kiss: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lavished praise on France

Snub: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lavished praise on France last night, calling it America’s ¿oldest ally¿ as the two countries prepare for a missile strike against Syria

Syria

Halfway around the world, U.S. warships were in place in the Mediterranean Sea. They carried cruise missiles, long a first-line weapon of choice for presidents because they can find a target hundreds of miles distant without need of air cover or troops on the ground.

Seeking to reassure Americans weary after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama insisted there would be no ‘boots on the ground.’

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said today that it would be ‘utter nonsense’ for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning the war, and urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to attack Syrian forces.

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron is driven away from the rear of Number 10 Downing Street

Strain: Prime Minister David Cameron is pictured being driven away from the rear of Number 10 Downing Street last night . He has been left humiliated following Thursday’s shock Commons defeat

Labour leader Ed Miliband works in his office at Westminster, London

Hard work: Labour leader Ed Miliband works in his office at Westminster yesterday after inflicting Thursday’s humiliating Commons defeat for David Cameron

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSED TO SYRIA INTERVENTION, REVEALS POLL

Determined: French President Francois Hollande has insisted he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad's regime

Determined: French President Francois Hollande has insisted he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande’s insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France’s armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today’s BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital’s daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are ‘hostile’ to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria’s civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

Despite such statistics, BVA analyst Celine Bracq said the mood would change if the French do join the USA in military action.

‘Be careful,’ she said. ‘The French are not for getting into a war, but they will largely get behind the head of state – by patriotic reflex – as soon as the operation is triggered.’

Mr Hollande has said that international action against Syria will ‘strike a body blow’ to Assad’s regime, and could start as early as Wednesday.

He said he was determined to act, despite Britain’s Parliament last week rejecting calls for an attack.

In an interview with this weekend’s Le Monde, Mr Hollande said: ‘Each country retains the sovereign right to participate or not in an operation. That applies to Britain as well as France.’

Putin said: ‘That is why I am convinced that it (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,"

Mr Cameron- who spoke to the U.S. President following Thursday’s defeat – acknowledged that ‘politics is difficult’ .

But he said he would not have to apologise to Mr Obama for being unable to commit UK military units to any international alliance.

Setting out the approach he would now take to Syria, the Prime Minister said: ‘I think it’s important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do.

Destruction: Residents inspect buildings damaged by what activists said were warplanes belonging to forces loyal to Syria's president Bashar Al-Assad in Iskat, near the Syrian-Turkish border

Destruction: Residents inspect buildings damaged by what activists said were warplanes belonging to forces loyal to Syria’s president Bashar Al-Assad in Iskat, near the Syrian-Turkish border

Lone supporter: President Francois Hollande of France is the only country supporting the United States as they contemplate armed action against Bashar Assad's regime over a suspected chemical weapons attack on his own people.

Lone supporter: President Francois Hollande of France is the only country supporting the United States as they contemplate armed action against Bashar Assad’s regime over a suspected chemical weapons attack on his own people.

‘We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of – whether the EU, or Nato, or the G8 or the G20 – to condemn what’s happened in Syria.

‘It’s important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons.

‘But one thing that was proposed, the potential – only after another vote – involvement of the British military in any action, that won’t be happening.

‘That won’t be happening because the British Parliament, reflecting the great scepticism of the British people about any involvement in the Middle East, and I understand that, that part of it won’t be going ahead.’

Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with the U.S. President, a Number 10 spokesman said: ‘The PM explained that he wanted to build a consensual approach in Britain for our response and that the Government had accepted the clear view of the House against British military action.

‘President Obama said he fully respected the PM’s approach and that he had not yet taken a decision on the US response.

‘The president stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the Prime Minister and of the strength, durability and depth of the special relationship between our two countries.

‘They agreed that their co-operation on international issues would continue in the future and both reiterated their determination to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict by bringing all sides together.’

Anti-war protesters have hailed Parliament’s vote against British intervention in Syria as a ‘victory’ as they gathered in Trafalgar Square today to show their opposition to military strikes.

Around a thousand campaigners carried banners with slogans such as No Attack on Syria and Hands Off Syria and Syrian flags.

Speakers addressed the crowd from below Nelson’s Column as tourists visiting central London looked on.

‘Never let them say demonstrations don’t work – our demonstration has worked,’ Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War coalition, said to the cheers of protesters.

Stop the War coalition said that 5,000 people had turned out on a sunny and pleasant late summer day to back the protest.

The White House released this map detailing its understanding of the areas where chemical weapons were used

The White House released this map detailing its understanding of the areas where chemical weapons were used

U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON THE SOURCE OF SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK
  • U.S. intelligence community has ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack on August 21
  • Members of the Syrian regime were preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the August 21 attack and protected themselves using gas masks
  • At least 1,429 Syrians were killed in the attacks, including 426 children
  • The weapons were launched from government-controlled areas into opposition-held or contested territory
  • The Syrian government has carried out smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks multiple times over the last year
  • U.S. intelligence officials ‘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, intelligence officials learned that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations

Women with Syrian flags painted on their faces chanted ‘USA shame on you’.

There were also several trade union and Communist flags with the hammer and sickle on display.

Veteran left-winger and former Labour MP Tony Benn addressed the crowd and expressed his hope that ‘the voice of peace should become the voice of Britain’.

After leaving Syria, the international contingent of weapons inspectors are heading to laboratories in Europe with the samples they have collected.

Video said to be taken at the scene shows victims writhing in pain, twitching and exhibiting other symptoms associated with exposure to nerve agents.

The videos distributed by activists to support their claims of a chemical attack were consistent with Associated Press reporting of shelling in the suburbs of Damascus at the time, though it was not known if the victims had died from a poisonous gas attack.

The Syrian government said administration claims were ‘flagrant lies’ akin to faulty Bush administration assertions before the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

A Foreign Ministry statement read on state TV said that ‘under the pretext of protecting the Syrian people, they are making a case for an aggression that will kill hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians.’
Residents of Damascus stocked up on food and other necessities in anticipation of strikes, with no evident sign of panic.

One man, 42-year-old Talal Dowayih, said: ‘I am not afraid from the Western threats to Syria; they created the chemical issue as a pretext for intervention, and they are trying to hit Syria for the sake of Israel.’

Shortly after Kerry's remarks, President Obama said he is considering a 'limited, narrow act' against Syria.

President Obama said Friday that he is considering ‘limited, narrow’ military action against Syria0

Kerry: Syria’s Assad is a thug and murderer

Obama met with his national security aides at the White House and then with diplomats from Baltic countries, saying he has not yet made a final decision on a response to the attack.

Mr Kerry said yesterday that the credibility and security of the U.S. and its allies are at stake.

‘Some cite the risk of doing things,’ he said. But we need to ask, “What is the risk of doing nothing?”’

The U.S. intelligence report said that about 3,600 patients ‘displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure’ were seen at Damascus-area hospitals after the attack.

To that, Kerry added that ‘a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact and actually was afraid they would be discovered.’ He added for emphasis: ‘We know this.’

An estimated 100,000 civilians have been killed in more than two years, many of them from attacks by the Syrian government on its own citizens.

Obama has long been wary of U.S. military involvement in the struggle, as he has been with turbulent events elsewhere during the so-called Arab Spring. In this case, reluctance stems in part from recognition that while Assad has ties to Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, the rebels seeking to topple him have connections with al-Qaida terrorist groups.

Still, Obama declared more than a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would amount to a ‘red line’ that Assad should not cross.

And Obama approved the shipment of small weapons and ammunition to the Syrian rebels after an earlier reported chemical weapons attack, although there is little sign that the equipment has arrived.
With memories of the long Iraq war still fresh, the political crosscurrents have been intense both domestically and overseas.

Kerry: There will be no U.S. boots on the ground in Syria

Dozens of lawmakers, most of them Republican, have signed a letter saying Obama should not take military action without congressional approval, and top leaders of both political parties are urging the president to consult more closely with Congress before giving an order to launch hostilities.

Despite the urgings, there has been little or no discussion about calling Congress back into session to debate the issue.

Lawmakers have been on a summer break for nearly a month, and are not due to return to the Capitol until Sept. 9.

Obama has not sought a vote of congressional approval for any military action. Neither Republican nor Democratic congressional leaders have challenged his authority to act or sought to have lawmakers called into session before he does.

Hundreds died in the alleged chemical attacks on Wednesday, including many women and children

Hundreds died in the alleged chemical attacks on Wednesday, including many women and children
The Prime Minister said the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons on 10 other occasions before the attack that killed up to 1,200 in Damascus last week and warned the world 'should not stand idly by'

Secretary of State John Kerry said images like these contributed to the U.S. assessment that chemical weapons were used in Syria

Senior White House, State Department, Pentagon and intelligence officials met for an hour and half Friday with more than a dozen senators who serve on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. He described the discussion as ‘open and constructive.’

The White House will brief Republican senators in a conference call today at the request of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a spokesman for the senator, Don Stewart, said.

Obama’s efforts to put together an international coalition to support military action have been more down than up.

Hollande has endorsed punitive strikes, and told the newspaper Le Monde that the ‘chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished.’

American attempts to secure backing at the United Nations have been blocked by Russia, long an ally of Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged a delay in any military action until the inspectors can present their findings to U.N. member states and the Security Council.

‘President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests,’ he said. ‘Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.’

Obama says no decision on Syria yet

Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today

Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today

He said the U.S. should also feel confident that it has the backing of a number of other nations, including Turkey, Australia, the Arab League and what he called America’s ‘oldest ally,’ France.

Half of Americans say they oppose taking military action against Syria and nearly 80 percent believe Obama should seek congressional approval before using any force, according to a new NBC poll.

The administration supplemented Kerry’s remarks Friday with the release of the intelligence report.

‘It’s findings are as clear as they are compelling,’ Kerry said.

The report concludes with ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.

‘Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,’ the report says.

‘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,’ the report continues. ‘On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.’

Strain: David Cameron's failure to secure UK backing for President Barack Obama's intervention in Syria threatens the special relationship

British Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure Parliament’s backing for military intervention in Syria

The findings also claim that Assad is the ‘ultimate decision maker’ for Syria’s chemical weapons program and that his regime has used the weapons on a smaller scale against citizens several times in the past year.

‘This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin,’ the report says. ‘We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.’ Sarin is a type of nerve gas.

The report further reveals evidence that the regime had been preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the attacks and protected themselves using gas masks.

‘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,’ the report says.

The report also cited evidence that the attacks were launched from regime-controlled areas into opposition territory or contested areas.

Activists say that somewhere between 200 and 1,300 were killed in the chemical weapons attack on Wednesday near Damascus. Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons of any country

Calling Assad a ‘thug’ and a ‘murderer,’ John Kerry declared, ‘History would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator¿s use of chemical weapons.’

Assad propaganda on Syrian TV says ‘U.S. evidence is lies’

Several senior officials related before the release of the report that the intelligence was ‘not a slam dunk’ in terms of tying Assad’s regime to the use of chemical weapons.

The term ‘slam dunk’ is a reference to the then-CIA Director George Tenet’s assurance in 2002 that assessments showing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a ‘slam dunk.’

Kerry assured on Friday that the U.S. will not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war.

‘We are more than mindful of the Iraq experience,’ Kerry said. ‘We will not repeat that moment.’

He later added: ‘Whatever decision [Obama] makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.’

The administration briefed members of Congress on a conference call Thursday evening to explain its conclusion that Bashar Assad’s government was guilty of carrying out a suspected chemical attack on August 21.

Following the call, House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, sided with Republican Speaker John Boehner of Ohio in urging the administration to engage with the full Congress on the matter.

She also said that the administration must provide ‘additional transparency into the decision-making process.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407764/We-know-Brits-counted-White-House-snub-US-France-prepare-strike-Syria-early-TOMORROW-chemical-attack-killed-1-429.html#ixzz2da3LXWXP

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

Posted on August 30, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Intelligence Experts Around the Globe Are Sounding the Alarm that the Justification for Intervention Is Far from Established

Huffington Post reports:

Intelligence experts around the globe are sounding the alarm that the justification for intervention is far from established.

***

One of the world’s leading experts on chemical weapons, Jean Pascal Zanders, on Friday told The Huffington Post UK that he has significant doubts about the identity of the chemical agent widely blamed for the deaths in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

“We don’t know what the agent is,” said Zanders, who until recently served as senior research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, an EU agency that scrutinizes defense and security issues. “Everyone is saying sarin. There is something clearly to do with a neurotoxicant [such as sarin], but not everything is pointing in that direction.”

The agent used is a crucial piece of information, Zanders said, because the family of neurotoxicants that includes military weapons such as nerve agents also encompasses industrial products like those used to control rodents. Until the actual agent can be identified, any link to the Assad regime is tenuous, Zanders said.

“If say, for example, a neurotoxicant was taken from a factory and used at [Ghouta], then the number of actors who might be responsible for that then increases,” he said

Zanders’ caution was merely the latest bit of skepticism to emerge from the ranks of experienced experts now challenging the adequacy of the case for a strike in Syria.

On Thursday, Lawrence Wilkerson, who reviewed the intelligence presented by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell as justification for the war in Iraq a decade ago, told HuffPost that the preparations for a Syria strike seem devoid of authority.

Wilkerson [who largely drafted Powell’s speech] likened the current debate to a repeat of the days he spent preparing for Powell’s since-debunked testimony, “with people telling me [former Iraq President] Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction with absolutely certainty.”

He added: “It seems like the same thing again.”

That pronouncement followed a striking caution from Hans Blix, who was chief United Nations arms inspector for Iraq in the run-up to the war. In an interview with Nathan Gardels, Blix said that while “indications are certainly in the direction of the use of chemical weapons” in Syria, those now contemplating military action should wait for U.N. inspectors now on the ground to complete their work.

“As we’ve seen before, the political dynamics are running ahead of due process,” Blix said, adding that the dynamic was reminiscent of the way the Bush administration launched the war in Iraq.

“I do not go along with the statement by the U.S. that ‘it is too late’ for Syria now to cooperate. That is a poor excuse for taking military action.”

Most pointedly, Blix warned that missiles aimed at eradicating Assad’s chemical weapons capacities could exacerbate harm.

“Attacking stockpiles with cruise missiles, as I understand it, has the disadvantage that is might spread chemical weapons in the vicinity of any attack,” Blix said.

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.”

Indeed, many experts on chemical weapons have expressed doubt that government-made chemicals were used.  And – in a replay of the run up to the Iraq war – the U.S. has done everything it can toprevent U.N. weapons inspectors from doing their job.

McClatchy notes:

At least one former chemical weapons inspector who was involved in gathering intelligence in Iraq 10 years ago saw more similarities to 2003 than differences.

The inspector, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said that reading the unclassified U.S. intelligence report on Friday gave him a sense of deja vu. He said the lack of information about a specific chemical agent could indicate that the administration lacks forensic evidence.

“A lot of this seems circumstantial,” he said. “This document is written by the choir for the choir to preach to the choir.”

And U.S. and British intelligence now that admit they don’t know whether it was the rebels or the Syrian government who carried out the attack.

And there is growing evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons.

 

French Oppose War Against Syria

Posted on August 30, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

But Government Ignores Them

The French people – like the Americans – oppose war against Syria.

Agence France-Presse and the Local reported yesterday:

On the same day France dispatched a ship towards Syria a survey conducted by IFOP for Le Figaro newspaper shows the French hold a mainly negative view towards a possible military intervention in Syria by the country’s armed forces.

The poll revealed that 59% of the public are against French involvement.

The Windsor Start notes:

A new poll suggests nearly three in five French people would oppose France joining any military action in Syria.

The fact that the French government – like the American government – is willing to ignore its people’s wishes is stunning.  (France was, of course, the empire which formerly ruled Syria as a colony.)

Indeed, most people worldwide are opposed to a strike on Syria:

A new poll by The Sun shows that Brits oppose a missile strike against Syria by a factor of 2-to-1.

A new poll in Germany shows that 69% of the German people were against a military strike on Syria.

A Pew poll from May – after the previous chemical weapon attack – found:

Eight-in-ten Germans (82%) opposed such assistance, as did more than two-thirds of the French (69%) and a majority of the British (57%). Even the Turks (65%), who share a border with Syria and now house 300,000 refugees from the civil war, oppose military aid to the rebels.

Publics in the Middle East are even less supportive of the West getting involved. In five of the six countries that were surveyed in March in the region – Lebanon (80%), Turkey (68%), Tunisia (60%), Egypt (59%) and the Palestinian territories (63%) – publics opposed Americans or Europeans supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons.

 

Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council

Published time: August 31, 2013 09:55
Edited time: August 31, 2013 15:21

Get short URL

A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network shows smoke above buildings following what Syrian rebels claim to be a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo / Ammar al-Arbini)

Download video (31.19 MB)

Video – Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council

Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared ‘utter nonsense’ the idea that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people and called on the US to present its supposed evidence to the UN Security Council.

Putin has further called the Western tactic a ‘provocation.’

Washington has been basing its proposed strategy of an attack on Syria on the premise that President Bashar Assad’s government forces have used chemical agents, while Russia finds the accusations unacceptable and the idea of performing a military strike on the country even more so. Especially as it would constitute a violation of international law, if carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Further to this, Putin told Obama that he should consider what the potential fallout from a military strike would be and to take into consideration the suffering of innocent civilians.

The Russian president has expressed certainty that the strategy for a military intervention in Syria is a contingency measure from outside and a direct response to the Syrian government’s recent combat successes, coupled with the rebels’ retreat from long-held positions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (RIA Novosti / Aleksey Nikolskyi)

Russian President Vladimir Putin (RIA Novosti / Aleksey Nikolskyi)

“Syrian government forces are advancing, while the so-called rebels are in a tight situation, as they are not nearly as equipped as the government,” Putin told ITAR-TASS. He then laid it out in plain language:

“What those who sponsor the so-called rebels need to achieve is simple – they need to help them in their fight… and if this happens, it would be a tragic development,” Putin said.

Russia believes that any attack would, firstly, increase the already existing tensions in the country, and derail any effort at ending the war.

"Any unilateral use of force without the authorisation of the U.N. Security Council, no matter how ‘limited’ it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties," said the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, adding that the threats issued by Washington “in the absence of any proof” of chemical weapons use.

On Friday, Washington said a plan for a limited military response was in the works to punish Assad for a “brutal and flagrant” chemical attack that allegedly killed more than 1400 people in the capital Damascus 10 days ago.

The Syrian government has been denying all allegations, calling the accusation preposterous and pointing its own accusations against rebel forces, especially Al-Qaeda-linked extremists who have wreaked havoc on the country in the two years since the start of the civil war.

 

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
August 31, 2013

Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly.  Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?”  The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.

If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah.  The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting.  They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime.  Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card – the U.S. military.  If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other – the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other.  In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well.  For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe.  That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post

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.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control.  But they would be even worse than Assad.  They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either.  I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria.  If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel willrespond.

And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict.  And right now Hezbollah has70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those “pro-Israel” websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice.  If you really are “pro-Israel”, you should not want this war.  It would not be good for Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace.  This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel.  Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell.  Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one.  Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it.  Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels.  At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of “defense readiness” from “five” to “two” in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad’s government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness has been raised to “two” from “five”, a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. “One” is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

And this is a guy that isn’t just fresh out of journalism school.  As Paul Joseph Watson noted, “Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.”

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak’s bombshell findings…

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them.  Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria…

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

But Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of putting this before Congress.

He is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress or the American people stop him.

Let’s just hope that he doesn’t start World War III in the process.

 

Under Colossal Global Backlash, Obama Holds Off on Syria Strike

Obama decides to follow the Constitution and seek Congressional approval for Syrian military strike

Julie Wilson and Alex Jones
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013

Obama addressed the public on Saturday from the White House Rose Garden. He confirmed US’s intention to use force against Syria, however, is reportedly waiting to enforce military action until Congress is able to hold a debate and vote on the matter.

“House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Saturday that he expects the House to consider the measure the week of Sept. 9,” reported The Hill.

Obama claims he has the authority to move forward solo, but surprisingly stated it’s important for the country to debate military intervention.

“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress. The country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be more effective,” said Obama.

His position most likely stems from innumerable world allies and government officials who have strongly voiced their opposition to military involvement in Syria.

Just as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote today in a piece entitled America Totally Discredited, he assesses this is the greatest diplomatic meltdown in US history.

In his report he acknowledges the greatest danger now is that the White House may attempt to stage something else in order to persuade the unconvinced public into a war with Syria.

“The rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence,” writes Roberts.

Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have come out saying the chemical attacks have all the hallmarks of a false flag or staged event.

In closing, Obama nonchalantly informed the public that the US is in a position to strike, and that the strike could come tomorrow, next week or even a month from now.

A military response is “not time sensitive,” reiterated the President.

Following the UK Parliament’s decision to vote no against Syrian intervention, “Obama indicated he will not wait for either approval from the U.N. Security Council or the conclusion of U.N. inspectors’ investigation into the Syria attack,” reported Fox News.

Obama’s decision to follow the Constitutional law of the republic for now, is a tremendous victory for America.

 

Russia sharply steps up criticism of U.S. over Syria

By Will Englund, Saturday, August 31, 8:49 AM

MOSCOW – Russia dramatically escalated its denunciations of American threats to attack Syrian military targets on Saturday, with President Vladimir Putin saying it would have been “utter nonsense” for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons as the Obama administration alleges.

The Foreign Ministry, in a statement issued before President Obama said he would seek congressional authorization before ordering strikes on Syria, said a U.S. attack would be a “gross violation” of international law.

Speaking out for the first time since an apparent chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21, Putin called on President Obama to find a nonviolent way out of the crisis.

“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.

“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” he said.

The White House argued Friday that intelligence shows more than 1,400 people died from exposure to chemical weapons in an attack carried out by the Syrian military.

Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international — and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.

Doing so, he said, would have been “utter nonsense’’ – with the clear implication that that is how he would characterize the American allegations.

On top of that, he said, the Obama administration’s “claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners.”

Putin’s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, “Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law.”

Putin said he was surprised by the vote in Britain’s Parliament on Thursday not to join a U.S. attack on Syrian military targets. “It shows that there are people guided by common sense there,” he said.

Putin said he and Obama have not discussed Syria since the alleged chemical weapons attack occurred.

The Russian president is fond of needling his opponents, often adopting a tone of apparent reasonableness tinged with a considerable amount of condescension. A U.S. assault on Assad’s government would do nothing to hurt his standing, at home or in many countries abroad, where his contempt for Washington tends to play very well.

“The U.S. president and I certainly discussed this problem at the G-8” summit in June in Northern Ireland, Putin said Saturday. “And, by the way, we agreed then that we would jointly facilitate peace negotiations in Geneva, and the Americans committed themselves to bringing the armed opposition to these negotiations. I understand this is a difficult process, and it looks like they haven’t succeeded in this.”

Obama arrives in St. Petersburg for the G-20 meeting on Thursday and leaves on Friday. The purpose of the gathering is to discuss economic growth, but the White House acknowledges there will be plenty of conversation about Syria on the side. There are currently no plans for a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Obama, who earlier this month decided not to attend a Moscow summit with the Russian president.

On Friday, the head of the foreign affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, Alexei Pushkov, said the Nobel committee should strip Obama of his 2009 Peace Prize if he launches an attack on Syria.

White House to hold Sunday Syria briefings for lawmakers (video)

By Ben Geman – 08/31/13 01:40 PM ET

Administration officials are planning classified and unclassified briefings with senators and House members as some lawmakers clamor for the White House to better explain anticipated U.S. strikes against the Syrian regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons this month in the suburbs of Damascus.

Top Obama administration officials including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry will hold separate unclassified phone briefings for Senate Democrats and Republicans Saturday afternoon.  

A White House source said National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper would also participate in the calls.

Vice President Joe Biden was also at the White House on Saturday morning, despite his official schedule saying he would be in Delaware with no public events.

White House sources won’t confirm if Biden will be involved with the Senate calls.

Meanwhile, Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office said Saturday that administration officials will offer a classified briefing to House members on Sunday afternoon.

The Speaker’s office added that “many classified briefings” will be offered for members who are not in Washington and will be unable to attend Sunday’s briefing.

Also, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) is also making staff members available this weekend to allow lawmakers to review the administration’s classified assessment, delivered late Friday.

The briefings come after the White House on Friday released an intelligence report that said that said 1,429 Syrians — including 426 children — had been killed in the alleged chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs.

President Obama said Friday that the U.S. is considering a “limited” and “narrow” military strike against Syria. The president said the world had "an obligation to make sure we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons," although he had not made a final decision about what actions might be taken.

"This kind of attack is a challenge to the world," Obama said. "We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale."

Obama said that while a "wide range of options" for possible military action was under review, the White House was not considering "any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319783-white-house-ramps-up-syria-pitch-to-senate-with-fresh-briefings#ixzz2daMSk323
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

Syrian rebels plan raids to exploit Western strikes – commander

Free Syrian Army fighters ride on the back of a pickup truck in Deir al-Zor August 30, 2013. Picture taken August 30, 2013. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

By Erika Solomon

BEIRUT | Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:51am BST

(Reuters) – Opposition fighters across Syria are preparing to launch attacks that exploit anticipated U.S.-led military strikes, but there are no plans to coordinate with Western forces, a Syrian rebel commander said on Saturday.

The United States said on Friday it was planning a limited response to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a "brutal and flagrant" chemical weapons attack it says killed more than 1,400 people in Damascus 10 days ago. Washington has five cruise-missile equipped destroyers in the region.

The Syrian government denies using chemical arms.

Qassim Saadeddine, a former Syrian army colonel and spokesman for the rebels’ Supreme Military Council, said the council had sent a selection of rebel groups a military plan of action to use if strikes took place.

"The hope is to take advantage when some areas are weakened by any strikes. We ordered some groups to prepare in each province, to ready their fighters for when the strike happens," he told Reuters, speaking by Skype.

"They were sent a military plan that includes preparations to attack some of the targets we expect to be hit in foreign strikes, and some others that we hope to attack at the same time."

The Supreme Military Council is the armed wing linked to the National Coalition, an umbrella group considered to be the opposition’s political leadership abroad.

Saadeddine said the plans had been prepared without any help from foreign powers. He said no information had been offered to them by the United States or any other Western countries such asFrance, which has supported carrying out a strike on Assad.

MILITARY TARGETS

"The United States considers us to be one of the two parties engaged in a civil war, they haven’t spoken to the rebel leadership at large, though they have communicated to the political leaders in the Coalition," Saadeddine said. "There may have been consultations with the head of our council, Salim Idriss, but I cannot confirm this."

Syria’s two-and-a-half year old conflict began as a peaceful protests against four decades of Assad family rule but has become a civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people.

Activists said rockets loaded with poison-gas killed hundreds of people in rebel-held areas outside Damascus, many of them children, on August21. The Syrian government blames rebels fighting to topple Assad for the attack, but Washington says its intelligence shows Assad’s forces were responsible.

Saadeddine said his forces assessed that a Western attack would happen in the coming days and would last about three days.

Saadeddine said the rebels liaising with the council had drawn up a list of potential targets for any strike.

"We think it will be something among military sites such as the headquarters of military leadership, military airports, certain weapon storage areas, or launch pads and installations for large missiles such as Scuds," he said.

Other sites seen by rebels as likely targets, Saadeddine said, were those belonging to elite forces believed most loyal to Assad – the Fourth Armoured Division and the Republican Guard. The opposition blames those units for playing a role in the poison gas attack.

Other rebels contacted, without links to the council, said they were also trying to prepare for a potential strike, but that they were struggling to come up with a plan of action.

 

VIDEO: RUSSELL BRAND BREAKS DOWN SYRIA, DESTROYS MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Anthony Gucciardi

by Anthony Gucciardi
August 30th, 2013
Updated 08/30/2013 at 7:44 pm

After his MSNBC appearance challenging the talking heads of mainstream media generated millions of views on YouTube in a display of just how much the public craves real information, Russell Brand is now back on air exposing the situation and Syria and the mainstream media propaganda.

Appearing in an interview with Alex Jones that filmed today, Russell brings further credibility to the power of the alternatives news and the collapse of the mega media. In fact, Russell’s breakdown of just how distorted the media reporting on the events in Syria are coincides exactly with what I have been reporting on for a number of weeks now. Ultimately, this is a display of just how much of a difference we are making in the alternative news, and more importantly how many millions we can reach by continuing to push out the truthamid the volley of disinformation coming from the media.

TOP OFFICIALS: ALT NEWS DESTROYING SYRIA WAR MACHINE

We are continually making major strides in the informational battle against skewed news, and this fact is now even being admitted by the very high level officials who seek to send us into Syria-style scenarios that could very well initiate World War 3. One such powerful admission I was extremely pleased to hear about and bring to you was the admission by top Obama adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski that it was actually the ‘global political awakening’ that was putting a wrench in the Syria war machine.

In other words, elite control freaks like Brzezinski know that we aren’t listening to their warmongering propaganda anymore, and instead we are craving the truth on all fronts. And it’s the public craving for the truth that is halting their entire plan to launch the United States and other nations internationally into a hot war with Syria — one that, despite the information being out there, virtually no one realizes is essentially a major combat scenario with Russia through Assad.

Today’s Russell Brand interview truly highlights the effectiveness of not only alternative news juggernauts like Infowars, Drudge Report, and Storyleak, but the overall power of the entire movement as a whole.

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/video-russell-brand-breaks-down-syria-destroys-mainstream-media/#ixzz2daNcUtk4

Sixth U.S. ship now in eastern Mediterranean ‘as precaution’

The amphibious transport dock ship USS San Antonio (LPD 17) departs Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia October 31, 2012 in this handout photo supplied by the U.S. Navy November 1, 2012. REUTERS/James DeAngio/U.S. Navy/Handout

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON | Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:57pm EDT

(Reuters) – A sixth U.S. warship is now operating in the eastern Mediterranean, near five U.S. destroyers armed with cruise missiles that could soon be directed against Syriaas part of a "limited, precise" strike, defense officials said late on Friday.

They stressed that the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with several hundred U.S. Marines on board, was in the region for a different reason and there were no plans to put Marines on the ground as part of any military action against Syria.

One of the officials said the San Antonio’s passage into the Mediterranean was long-planned, but officials thought it prudent to keep the ship in the eastern Mediterranean near the destroyers given the current situation.

"It’s been kept there as a precaution," said one of the officials, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The San Antonio transited through the Suez Canal on Thursday from the Red Sea, and received new orders on Friday to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, near the destroyers, according to defense officials. It is one of three ships that are carrying 2,200 Marines who have been on a six-month deployment in the region around the Arabian peninsula.

The Obama administration released evidence on Friday that it said demonstrated the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians. It made clear on Friday that it would punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" attack that it says killed more than 1,400 people in Damascus last week.

Officials cautioned the operation under discussion involved a limited, precise set of targets that would be of a short duration, unlike the broader campaign against Libya in March 2011.

The U.S. Navy generally keeps three destroyers in the Mediterranean, but kept two additional destroyers there at the end of their deployments as the situation evolved in Syria over the past week.

The five destroyers are each carrying an estimated three dozen or more Tomahawk missiles for a combined total of about 200 missiles, according to defense officials.

Byron Callan, analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, projected that a limited Syrian strike would use about 200 to 300 Tomahawk missiles, compared to about 221 used in the Libya operation.

Defense officials said a more narrowly targeted operation against Syria could involve even less missiles.

They cited a debate within the Obama administration about striking the right balance between a limited cruise missile attack aimed at delivering a message about chemical weapons, and a broader attack that could be seen as a strong insertion of the United States into the Syrian civil war.

Military and civilian officials have expressed the need for caution to avert a cascading military conflict that could have repercussions throughout the region. Some officials have cautioned that even an attack on military helicopters could be seen as part of a U.S. campaign to disable the Syrian military.

Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations during the 2011 strikes on Libya, said any strike on Syria would have to be targeted precisely to do the maximum amount of damage to Syrian military headquarters and other key sites – and to avert the possibility of retaliatory action.

"If you’re going to try to shape events, you really need to hurt them," said Roughead, now a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. "You would have to do something that would diminish the effectiveness of the Syrian military and that would be their command and control, perhaps their leadership, and then their ability to control air space."

 

UN weapons inspectors leave Syria earlier than planned

UN weapons experts left Syria earlier than planned this morning, paving the way for a possible US strike after Washington concluded the regime was responsible for last week’s deadly chemical attack.

By Josie Ensor, Raf Sanchez and Peter Foster in Washington and Jon Swaine in New York

5:26AM BST 31 Aug 2013

The 13 inspectors, led by Ake Sellstrom, brought forward their departure from 7am on Saturday to 4am, despite travel being considered dangerous around that time.

Their departure has opened a window for a possible US strike after President Barack Obama on Friday gave his clearest indication yet that a military intervention was imminent.

He said his administration was looking at the possibility of a "limited, narrow act", while stressing no final decision had been taken on whether to unleash military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Meawhile, Syria said Saturday morning it was expecting a military attack "at any moment" after the last of the inspectors left Damascus.

A Syrian security official told AFP: "We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment."

The experts are due to report straight back to United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon and detail their conclusions on whether a poison gas attack actually did take place on August 21, based on samples collected on site.

However, the results from testing of alleged chemical weapons in Syria could take up to two weeks.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, yesterday dismissed any findings of the inspectors as essentially irrelevant because, he said, their mandate was restricted to determining only if chemical weapons had been used, not who launched the attack.

The departure of the inspectors came as the US moved a sixth warship to the eastern Mediterranean.

The USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with several hundred US Marines on board, was positioned near five US destroyers armed with cruise missiles that could soon be directed against Syria as part of a "limited, precise" strike, according to defence officials.

One of the officials said the San Antonio’s passage into the Mediterranean was long-planned, but officials thought it prudent to keep the ship in the eastern Mediterranean near the destroyers given the current situation.

"It’s been kept there as a precaution," one said.

US intelligence officials said the Syrian regime had killed 1,429 people in a planned chemical weapons attack last week on the suburbs of Damascus. The death tally was disclosed as officials published detailed evidence to support a possible military strike on Syria.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, warned that "history would judge us" if the world failed to intervene.

American officials released a "substantial body of information" to support their conclusion that Bashar al-Assad’s regime had planned the Aug 21 attack for days.

The four-page document said that intercepted communications between Syrian officials "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime".

US satellites also picked up rockets being prepared and launched from regime territory into the rebel-held Ghouta area shortly before hundreds of civilians, including 426 children, began to foam at the mouth and fall dead "unstained by a single drop of blood".

"Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad’s gas, and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate," Mr Kerry said.

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

The intelligence had shown beyond all reasonable doubt that the Assad regime carried out the attack, Mr Kerry said.

"The primary question is no longer, ‘What do we know?’ The question is what are we – we collectively – what are we in the world going to do about it?"

He warned that inaction would send a signal to other rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea.

"If we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve."

The secretary of state’s impassioned statement came in the face of deep scepticism from some sections of Congress and the American public over whether it should strike against the regime.

Both Mr Kerry and Barack Obama were at pains to reassure the public that any intervention would be limited and would not include "boots on the ground". Mr Obama said: "We’re not considering any open-ended commitment." The president said he would continue consulting with Congress.

Polls show that half of the American people oppose military action while 42 per cent are in favour. Members of Congress have urged Mr Obama to call them back for an emergency session.

The secretary of state acknowledged the wariness Americans felt after the faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq war.

"We will not repeat that moment," he said. However, like the Bush administration before it the Obama White House is facing the prospect of going to war in the Middle East without the blessing of the United Nations. Mr Kerry insisted "we believe in the United Nations" but made clear that the White House would not be constrained by the failure to secure a Security Council resolution.

 

Barack Obama on Syria: text in full

President Barack Obama outlined his plan to launch military intervention in Syria on Saturday, but said he would seek approval from Congress first. Here is the full transcript of his speech.

Obama speaking today at the White House.

Obama speaking today at the White House. Photo: CHARLES DHARAPAK/AP

7:49PM BST 31 Aug 2013

 

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see – hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children – young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behaviour, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that 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.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also 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. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorisation for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralysed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorisation, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 per cent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake – this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might – not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

 

US President Barack Obama to put Syria strike to Congress vote

Delaying what had appeared to be an imminent strike, President Barack Obama announces he will seek congressional approval before launching any military action meant to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds.

Mr Obama said he did not need to seek permission, but felt the nation would be stronger if he did.

6:08PM BST 31 Aug 2013

Syria: latest news as Obama says will put Syria decision to Congress

US President Barack Obama said he will ask the US Congress to authorize military action against Syria, lifting the threat of immediate strikes on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Mr Obama said he had decided he would go ahead and take military action on Syria but he believed it was important for American democracy to win the support of lawmakers.

The decision represents a significant gamble for Obama, who has an estranged relationship with lawmakers, especially Republicans, and he risks suffering the same fate as British Prime Minister David Cameron, who lost his own vote on authorizing military action in parliament.

"I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress," Obama said.

 

Pat Buchanan: Chemical Attack ‘Reeks Of False Flag Operation’

Mikael Thalen
Storyleak
August 31, 2013

During an interview with Newsmax Thursday, three-time presidential adviser Pat Buchanan joined the growing number of mainstream voices now specifically labeling the recent chemical attacks in Syria as a false flag.

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

See the video below:

Throughout the course of the Syrian conflict, the Obama administration and its western allies have continually failed at their attempts to bring down the Assad government. Despite the administration’s claims of an “undeniable” Assad chemical attack, US officials have continued to cast doubt on the evidence.

Evidence pointing to a rebel-backed false flag chemical attack to blame Assad has continued to pile up as public approval for a Syrian intervention crumbles. Not only did the British parliament vote down the Cameron government’s attempts to intervene militarily, A Reuters poll from earlier this week found that 91 percent of Americans oppose military air strikes.

Just last Thursday, Al-Qaeda-backed Syrian rebels admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they had carried out the chemical attacks after being supplied the weapons from Saudi Arabia. The information backs up comments made by Syria’s deputy foreign minister as well as multiple YouTube videos showing the US funded rebels launching chemical attacks with “Saudi factory” labeled weapons.

Ron Paul’s statement calling the chemical attacks a false flag while on Fox News last Wednesday has seemingly opened the flood gates for other journalists to come forward with their similar findings. During an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News Friday, photojournalist Jonathan Alpeyrie, who was kidnapped and held captive by Syrian rebels for 81 days last April, said he also believed the recent chemical attack was a rebel backed false flag operation.

This coincides with the fact that Obama is now publicly on the same side as Al-Qaeda, as Anthony Gucciardi has broken down:

While the mainstream media has ridiculed and almost completely ignored the historical reality of false flag operations, prominent voices within the alternative news have now forced the term into the public narrative. The power structure has begun to panic from what they themselves have deemed the “global political awakening.” Powerful documentary films have been incremental tools in relaying information to the public on historical examples of state-sponsored terror.

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

ROBERT FISK

Tuesday 27 August 2013

‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime

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

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush  and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite  enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

 

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

Mona Alami, Special for USA TODAY9:04 a.m. EDT June 14, 2013

Syria

(Photo: AP/Edlib News Network ENN)

BEIRUT — A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.

Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.

"They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria," Bakri says. "There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups."

The United States, which supports the overthrow of Assad, designated al Nusra a terrorist entity in December. The Obama administration has said it wants to support only those insurgent groups that are not terrorist organizations.

Al Nusra and groups like it have seen some of the most significant victories against Syrian government forces in the course of the 2-year-old uprising in which Assad’s forces have killed about 80,000 people. Rebels not affiliated with al-Qaeda have pressed Washington for months to send weaponry that will allow them to match the heavy weapons of the Syrian army. They’ve urged the West to mount an air campaign against Assad’s mechanized forces.

President Obama refuses to provide any direct military aid. Foreign radical Islamists streaming into the fight from the Middle East and Europe are making headway with the Syrian population by providing services and gaining ground in battles.

Tamer Mouhieddine, spokesman for the Syrian Free Army, a force made up of Syrian soldiers who have defected, said the recent announcements would not change his group’s attitude toward al Nusra.

"The rebels in Syria have one common enemy — Bashar Assad — and they will collaborate with any faction allowing them to topple his regime," he said.

He confirmed that al Nusra is generating loyalty in Aleppo, a region battling for months with Assad, by providing financial support as well as setting up charities.

Aaron Zelin at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington says al Nusra’s ability to provide security and basic needs such as bread and fuel to Syrian civilians, as well as to reopen shops and restart bus services, has won gratitude from people who would not usually adhere to its strict ideology.

Zelin says some Syrian people have criticized al Nusra for banning alcohol, forcing women to wear a full veil and whipping men who are seen with women in public.

"This illustrates the need for American leadership in the Syrian conflict, particularly with regard to helping non-Qaeda-aligned rebels contain the growth of (al Nusra) and similar groups," he said. "Washington should also try to take advantage of cleavages within the rebellion and civilian population, since al Nusra is outside the mainstream and more concerned with establishing a transnational caliphate than maintaining the Syrian state."

Groups such as the Islamic Liwaa al Tawhid, which collaborates with al Nusra on military operations, worried that Assad would use the announcement from al Nusra as evidence for his claim that he is fighting terrorists, not Syrian citizens who wish an end to his dictatorship, Mouhieddine said.

"We are willing to fight alongside any faction targeting the Assad regime, as long as it does not have a foreign agenda, which seems now the case" of al Nusra, he said.

 

Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels

Syrian rebel fighters pose for a picture in Hama July 20, 2012. REUTERS/Shaam News Network/Handout

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 1, 2012 9:04pm EDT

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

‘NERVE CENTER’

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This "nerve center" is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.

On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had "not obtained any such weapons at all." U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.

Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.

Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a "memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.

Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.

Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it.

OVERT SUPPORT

Separately from the president’s secret order, the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is providing some backing for Assad’s opponents.

The State Department said on Wednesday the U.S. government had set aside a total of $25 million for "non-lethal" assistance to the Syrian opposition. A U.S. official said that was mostly forcommunications equipment, including encrypted radios.

The State Department also says the United States has set aside $64 million in humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people, including contributions to the World Food Program, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other aid agencies.

Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury confirmed it had granted authorization to the Syrian Support Group, Washington representative of one of the most active rebel factions, the Free Syrian Army, to conduct financial transactions on the rebel group’s behalf. The authorization was first reported on Friday by Al-Monitor, a Middle East news and commentary website.

Last year, when rebels began organizing themselves to challenge the rule of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Obama also signed an initial "finding" broadly authorizing secret U.S. backing for them. But the president moved cautiously in authorizing specific measures to support them.

Some U.S. lawmakers, such as Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have criticized Obama for moving too slowly to assist the rebels and have suggested the U.S. government become directly involved in arming Assad’s opponents.

Other lawmakers have suggested caution, saying too little is known about the many rebel groups.

Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad’s opponents.

U.S. and European officials say that, so far, intelligence agencies do not believe the militants’ role in the anti-Assad opposition is dominant.

While U.S. and allied government experts believe that the Syrian rebels have been making some progress against Assad’s forces lately, most believe the conflict is nowhere near resolution, and could go on for years.

USF Student Harassed by Feds for Transporting Humanitarian Aide to Syria

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013

Khalid Shakfeh, a microbiology student at the University of South Florida, was questioned by officials with the Department of Defense (DoD) after he returned from a trip to Syria in which he helped transport and provide humanitarian materials, reported WTSP.

The 18-year old student is an American citizen born of Syrian immigrants. Shakfeh and his sister traveled with the Syrian American Council, a group that aims at supporting human rights, civil liberties and promotes a friendly relationship between Syria and the US.

During the March trip, Shakfeh said he provided basic medical supplies like gauze, Tylenol and Advil to Syrians who lacked access to basic necessities.

Upon his return, Shakfeh says he was contacted by the MacDill-based U.S. Special Operations Command(SOCOM), a group that specializes in synchronize planning of global operations against terrorist networks.

“What did you? What were the people there facing? What do they need and things like that?” asked SOCOM officials.

Shakfeh told officials that he could provide them the “best” and “most clear” answers if they submitted their questions in writing. SOCOM failed to submit to his request.

A few days later officials sought after Shakfeh again, this time at his father’s medical practice. The American student stood his ground again telling the DoD officials that he would submit his answers if they provided him the questions in writing. The DoD declined and Shakfeh says he hasn’t heard from them since.

“The FBI and other government agencies actively targeting us just to harass… a means of harassment,” Shakfeh said.

Spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hassan Shibly, said he’s seen patterns of the US government targeting people based on their background, color, and religion, questioning and harassing them without cause.

He calls the behavior by the DoD “un-American and unacceptable.”

The fact the US government has been targeting US Syrian immigrants for some time now, illustrates the US’s perception of the relationship between the two countries.

As of Friday, the US announced no specific plans on how they intend to move forward on the Syrian conflict, but has moved a sixth warship into the Mediterranean as a “precaution.”

The US currently has six warships in place, with reportedly five destroyers each carrying an estimated three dozen or more Tomahawk missiles for a combined total of about 200 missiles, according to a Reuters report.

White House peeved at Pentagon leaks

By GLENN THRUSH |

8/30/13 5:10 PM EDT

Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes.

But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized — and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself.

"Deeply unhelpful," was how one West Winger described the drip-drip of doubt.

"They need to shut the f–k up," said a former administration official. "It’s embarrassing. Who ever heard this much talk before an attack? It’s bizarre."

(WATCH: John McCain fumes over Syria leaks)

An obvious example was a report in Thursday’s Washington Post in which current and former officers listed their worries about Syria:

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

Far more damaging have been a series of disclosures that more subtlely undermine Obama’s claim that the Syria action will be quick and clean, punitive and tailored. Earlier this week theNew York Times reported on doubts that the main weapon likely employed against Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Tomahawk cruise missile, would have a meaningful impact on the regime’s chemical weapons facilities which are widely scattered and likely to be well hidden. This graf, I’m told, chafed in particular:

The weapons are not often effective against mobile targets, like missile launchers, and cannot be used to attack underground bunkers. Naval officers and attack planners concede that the elevation of the missile cannot entirely be controlled and that there is a risk of civilian casualties when they fly slightly high.

The back-and-forth is hardly unprecedented; For decades, military officials — the people who actually have to implement war plans — have been a source of dissent. Think Pentagon Papers. And Obama officials say the criticism isn’t coming from Secretary Chuck Hagel and his cadre of top aides but lower-ranking brass.

(PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)

One top leader who has been publicly skeptical of the costs and dangers of getting involved in the Syrian civil war is Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey who offered a cost estimate of $1 billion per month for a no-fly zone and buffer-zone ground force during congressional testimony earlier this summer.

During the same appearance Dempsey predicted such areas could become sanctuaries for Islamic radicals and said even a limited strike, of the type being contemplated now, could cost "billions."

Obama’s Syria Attack: The Health of the Military Industrial Complex

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013

Following twin war drum speeches by Secretary of State John Kerry and Obama on Friday, the corporate media, led by the traditional master of war propaganda, the New York Times, speculated that the United States might not attack Syria if it can’t nail down support.

“Deprived of the support of Britain, America’s most stalwart wartime ally, the Obama administration scrambled behind the scenes to build international support elsewhere for a strike that might begin as early as this weekend,” the Time reports. “Officials were still holding out hope that at least one Arab country might publicly join the military coalition.”

One Arab nation? How pathetic. None of this matters because so-called partners, consensus and the “need to establish American credibility” has little to do with the drive to bomb Syria.

Bombing Syria — or any other country — is about business: the prospect of bombs over Damascus is about profits for the military-industrial complex. It is about transnational corporations and international banks that stand to gain both obscene profits and unprecedented political power in a geopolitical chess game.

If you doubt this, check out the graphs below. They reveal something not broadcast on the front page of the New York Times: wars and rumors of war drive the markets.

Death merchant Raytheon’s stock price to a 52-week high this week.

Death merchant Raytheon’s stock price went to a 52-week high this week.

Lockheed Martin saw its stock spike to a six month high on Monday, the day war propaganda started up in earnest.

Lockheed Martin saw its stock spike to a six month high on Monday, the day war propaganda started up in earnest.

During the Napoleonic Wars, the banker Nathan Mayer Rothschild was instrumental in financing the British war effort. He not only organized the shipment of bullion to the Duke of Wellington’s armies scattered across Europe, he also received and used to his advantage political and financial information denied his competitors. Rothschild famously exploited news of England’s victory over Napoleon at Waterloo to manipulate the markets and bought up the bond market after the war.
It’s no different now. Corporations and banks — far more powerful today than in Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s day — invariably drive the United States government to war. Speeches by the blue blood John Kerry Heinz and the teleprompter reader Obama who was carefully groomed by the CIA to be the first black president — and thus more teflon coated than Ronald Reagan — are minor players.

America Totally Discredited

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013

A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.

Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US “superpower,” the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone–not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored–a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes.

But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the “decider,” the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the “sole superpower” must now assert his authority over all law or Washington’s hegemony over the world is lost.

As I noted in an earlier column today, if Obama goes it alone, he will be harassed for the rest of his life as a war criminal who dares not leave the US. Indeed, a looming economic collapse could so alter the power and attitude of the United States that Obama could find himself brought to justice for his war crimes.

Regardless, the United States government has lost its credibility throughout the world and will never regain it, unless the Bush and Obama regimes are arrested and put on trial for their war crimes.

Obama’s destruction of US credibility goes far beyond diplomacy. It is likely that this autumn or winter, and almost certainly in 2014, the US will face severe economic crisis.

The long-term abuse of the US dollar’s reserve currency role by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, the never-ending issuance of new debt and printing of dollars to finance it, the focus of US economic policy on bailing out the “banks too big to fail” regardless of the adverse impact on domestic and world economies and holders of US Treasury debt, the awaiting political crisis of the unresolved deficit and debt ceiling limit that will greet Congress’ return to Washington in September, collapsing job opportunities and a sinking economy all together present the government in Washington with a crisis that is too large for the available intelligence, knowledge, and courage to master.

When the proverbial hits the fan, the incompetent and corrupt Federal Reserve and the incompetent and corrupt US Treasury will have no more credibility than Obama and John Kerry.

The rest of the world–especially Washington’s bullied NATO puppet states–will take great delight in the discomfort of “the world’s sole superpower” that has been running on hubris ever since the Soviet collapse.

The world is not going to bail out Washington, now universally hated, with currency swaps, more loans, and foreign aid. Americans are going to pay heavily for their negligence, their inattention, their unconcern, and their ignorant belief that nothing can go wrong for them and that anything that does is temporary.

Two decades of jobs offshoring has left the US with a third world labor force employed in lowly paid domestic nontradable services, a workforce comparable to India’s of 40 years ago. Already the “world’s sole superpower” is afflicted with a large percentage of its population dependent on government welfare for survival. As the economy closes down, the government’s ability to meet the rising demands of survival diminishes. The rich will demand that the poor be sacrificed in the interest of the rich. And the political parties will comply.

Is this the reason that Homeland Security, a Nazi Gestapo institution, now has a large and growing para-military force equipped with tanks, drones, and billions of rounds of ammunition?

How long will it be before American citizens are shot down in their streets by “their” government as occurs frequently in Washington’s close allies in Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain?

Americans have neglected the requirements of liberty. Americans are so patriotic and so gullible that all the government has to do is to wrap itself in the flag, and the people, or too many of them, believe whatever lie the government tells. And the gullible people will defend the government’s lie to their death, indeed, to the death of the entire world.

If Americans keep believing the government’s lies, they have no future. If truth be known, Americans have already lost a livable future. The neocons’ “American Century” is over before it begun.

Update: I have heard from educated and aware friends that the presstitute media on the evening news are beating the drums for war. This shows what paid whores the US media is and their total disconnect from reality. Anyone who wastes their time on the US media is a brainwashed idiot, a danger to humanity.

Update 8:52 PM August 30: Is the White House idiot going to be a victim of his own careless presidential appointments?

Does he have no one to tell him how to escape the dilemma his moronic Secretary of State and National Security Advisor have put him in? Someone needs to tell the WH Fool that he must say that he accepts the conclusion of the world community that there is not sufficient evidence for launching a military attack on Syria and killing even more people than were killed in the alleged, but unproven, chemical attack, and that he awaits further and better evidence.

God help the moron and the unfortunate country that the fool represents.

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.

PM: Syria’s army has ‘finger on the trigger’

Saturday, 31 August 2013

The Syrian regime is ready to retaliate to a military strike ‘at any moment.’ (File photo: Reuters)

Al Arabiya

Syria’s army is ready for potential foreign strikes against it and has its “finger on the trigger,” Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi said in comments carried Saturday on state television, Agence France-Presse reported.
“The Syrian army is fully ready, its finger on the trigger to face any challenge or scenario that they want to carry out,” AFP quoted him as saying in a written statement aired on television.

Syria is expecting a military strike “at any moment,” a security official said on Saturday, Only hours after U.N. inspectors left the country after investigating the aftermath of suspected chemical weapons attacks said to be perpetrated by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a security official said on Saturday that Syria is expecting a military strike “at any moment.”

“We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment,” an unnamed Syrian security official told AFP news agency.

The departure of the U.N. inspectors has given the United States an opportunity to carry out a military strike, after President Barack Obama on Friday indicated that military intervention was pending.

The U.S. president said that his administration was looking at the possibility of a “limited, narrow act,” while emphasizing that no final decision had yet been made on possible military strikes against the Syrian regime.

The U.N. inspectors are due to report back to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and present their conclusion on whether or not a poison gas attack took place on August 21.

The Syrian regime has denied responsibility for the alleged attacks which the U.S. government says caused the deaths of some 1,400 people.

(With AFP)

 


Are Westerners Ready to Bomb Syria?

Thierry Meyssan
voltairenet.org
August 30, 2013

Pretending to believe in a chemical attack by the Syrian government against its own people, Washington, London and Paris are beating the drums of war. Should we take these threats seriously coming from states having announced as imminent the fall of Syria for more than two years? Although one should not exclude this option, Thierry Meyssan thinks it is less likely that an intervention organized by Saudi Arabia. Western agitation would rather aim to test the responses of Russia and Iran.

"Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected," said the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov.

“Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors. They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected,” said the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov.

What bee has the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama, got in his bonnet? Sunday, August 25, the White House issued a statement in which an anonymous senior official said that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that Syria ’s agreement to let the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible .”

If the use of chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus, Wednesday, August 21, 2013 is likely, the Security Council of the United Nations has not concluded that it was the work of the Syrian government. At an emergency meeting held at the request of the West, the ambassadors were surprised to see their Russian colleague present satellite photos showing the firing of two rounds at 1:35 am from the rebel zone Duma in rebel areas affected by gas (at Jobar and between Arbin and Zamalka ) at times coinciding with the related disorders. The pictures do not tell us whether they were chemical shells, but they suggest that the “Brigade of Islam“, which occupies Duma, has hit three birds with the same stone: first, to remove the support of its rivals in the opposition; second, accuse Syria of using chemical weapons; finally, disrupt the offensive of the Syrian Arab army clearing the capital.

If the Syrian government, similar to its enemy, Israel, is not a signatory to the Convention against chemical weapons and has large stocks, the jihadists also have some, as confirmed by Carla Del Ponte, to the fury of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In December, the Free Syrian Army released a video showing a chemical laboratory and threatening the Alawites. This week, the government discovered several caches of chemical weapons, gas masks and antidotes in the suburbs of Damascus. The products came from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States and the Netherlands. Also, it is at the request of the Syrian government, not the West, that UN inspectors are present in Syria for two weeks to investigate allegations of use. Finally, on 29 May 29, 2013, the Turkish police arrested a dozen members of the Al-Nosra Front and seized chemical weapons that were to be used in Syria.

However, on Friday, President Obama met his National Security Council to review the attack options against Syria in the presence of Ambassador Samantha Power, leader of liberal hawks. He decided to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean by sending a fourth destroyer, loaded with cruise missiles, the USS Ramage. This is in addition to the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and USS Mahan, which remains in the zone when it should return to port.

Saturday, he called British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone. And on Sunday, he spoke with French President Francois Hollande. The three men agreed that intervention was necessary without specifying how. Sunday again, the Secretary of State John Kerry called his British, French, Canadian and Russian counterparts to say that the United States was convinced that Syria had crossed the “red line“. If the first three speakers listened at attention, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov expressed surprise that Washington pronounced itself before the report of the UN inspectors. He referred to the “extremely grave consequences” that would result form an intervention in the region.

Monday, the French defense minister, Jean -Yves Le Drian, was in Qatar and was to go to the UAE to coordinate with them. While the Israeli national security adviser, General Yaakov Amidror, was received at the White House. During a telephone conversation between the British Prime Minister David Cameron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the latter stressed that there was no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Syria. For his part, the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Li Baodong, called his U.S. counterpart, Wendy R. Sherman, to urge the United States to exercise restraint. Aware of the risk of a regional war in which Christians would suffer, Pope Francis reiterated his call for peace.

Should we therefore think that the West will go to war without a mandate from the Security Council, as NATO did in Yugoslavia? This is unlikely because at the time Russia was in ruins. Today, after issuing three vetoes to protect Syria, it must intervene or forsake any international action. However Sergey Lavrov has wisely rejected a Third World War. He said that his country was not ready to go to war against anyone, even over Syria. It could therefore be an indirect intervention in support of Syria, as China did during the Vietnam War .

Iran then, through its Deputy Chief of Staff, Massoud Jazayeri, indicated that the attack on Syria would be crossing the “red line” and that if it took this step, the White House would endure “serious consequences.” Though Iran has neither the resources of Russia, nor alliances, it is certainly one of the top 10 global military powers. Therefore, to attack Syria is to run the risk of retaliation against Israel and uprisings in much of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. The recent intervention of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the statements of its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, such as the Palestinian organization PFLP- General Command, leave no doubt.

Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al -Assad, said: “The statements made by US politicians, Western and other countries is an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. This is nonsense: first accuse, then gather evidence. This task is carried out by a powerful country, the United States ( … ) This kind of accusation is a purely political response to the series of victories won by government forces against the terrorists.

In Russia, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov, commented on his Twitter account : ” Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected.

The notion of a new war in Syria squares badly with the economic problems of the United States and Europe. If selling weapons is a way to earn money, destroying a state without hope of return in the short or medium term can worsen the situation.

According to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted after the August 21st attack, 60% of the US public opposed intervention in Syria against 9% who supported it . If they were convinced of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they remained 46% in opposition to the war and 25% in support. The same survey indicates that U.S. respondents are even less fond of secret war : 89 % said the US should not arm the rebels, against 11% who want to arm them more. Finally, four options were offered to respondents : airstrikes ( supported by 12%), creating a no-fly zone ( 11%), the financing of a multinational force ( 9%), and direct U.S. action ( 4%).

In France, Le Figaro, published by the arms dealer Dassault, asked its readers and, at the end of the day, 79.60 % opposed the war versus 20.40% in support. It will certainly be difficult to reverse public opinion and go to war.

Another interpretation of events is possible: some videos showing the victims of chemical attacks actually circulated on the Internet a few hours before the attacks. It will always be possible for Westerners to “discover” the deception in time and backtrack. However, the case of chemical weapons in Iraq has shown that Westerners could lie to the international community and escape with impunity once their evil deed is accomplished.

The charges from jihadists and their Western sponsors emerged while the Syrian Arab Army launched a major offensive, “Shield of Damascus” to free the capital. The shot of the two shells of the “Brigade of Islam” came at the beginning of the offensive, which continued for 5 days and resulted in significant losses among jihadists (at least 1,500 killed and wounded of the about 25,000 present). All this agitation may be only psychological warfare to both hide this defeat and attempt to cripple the Syrian offensive. This is especially a way for Washington to test the Iranian response after the election of Sheikh Hassan Rohani to his presidency. And it is now clear that the latter will not oppose the policy of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

However, during the war against Libya, I had underestimated the ability of the United States to violate all the rules, including those of NATO. Basing myself on documents from the Atlantic Alliance, I insisted on the long resilience of the Libyan Jamahiriya confronting its armed opposition. I ignored the holding of a secret meeting on the NATO base in Naples behind the back of the Atlantic Council. At the time, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Jordan secretly planned the use of Alliance assets to bomb Tripoli. Not trusting their allies, whom they knew would be opposed to an attack so costly in human lives, they had not informed them. The Atlantic Alliance was no longer an Alliance proper but an ad hoc coalition. In a few days, the taking of Tripoli caused at least 40,000 deaths, according to internal reports of the Red Cross. Such a manoeuvre may be being organized : the Chiefs of Staff of approximately the same states, plus Saudi Arabia and Canada, are gathered since Sunday and until tonight in Amman under the chairmanship of the CentCom commander, General Lloyd J. Austin III. They are considering five options: supplying weapons to the Contras, targeted bombings, creating a no-fly zone, establishment of buffer zones and land invasion.

The Atlanticist press calls to war. The London Times ad .

President Barack Obama could well follow the war plan drawn up by his predecessor George W. Bush on 15 September 2001, who foresaw, in addition to attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, those of Libya and Syria, as was revealed by the former Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark. Except that, for the first time, the target has serious allies.

However, the new U.S. rhetoric contradicts all the efforts of the Obama administration for the last year that sought to eliminate obstacles to the holding of the Geneva 2 Conference: resignation of General David Petraeus and supporters of the secret war, non-reappointment of Hillary Clinton and the ultra-Zionists ; indictment of irreducible opponents of an alliance with Russia, especially within NATO and the missile shield . It also contradicts the efforts of John Brennan to cause clashes in the Syrian armed opposition to demand the abdication of the Emir of Qatar, and to threaten Saudi Arabia.

On the Syrian side, we are preparing as much as is possible for any eventuality, including the NATO bombing of command centers and ministries coordinated with an assault by jihadists against the capital. However, the most likely option is not triggering a regional war that would overwhelm the Western powers. It is an attack in the fall, supervised by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the fighters it is currently recruiting . Eventually, this operation could be supported by the Arab League.


Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Image: YouTube

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR).

The website on which the story originally appeared – Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

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

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

 

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

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse Blog
August 30, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The New York Times: “American officials said Wednesday there was no ‘smoking gun’ that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

More than 150 Congress Members Demand Vote on Syria

Washington’s Blog
August 30, 2013

Is Obama the President … or the “Concluder”?

Politico notes:

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

Quite a few Congress members have pointed out that launching a war without Congressional approval is unconstitutional.

Britain – which didn’t pass the Constitution – let its Parliament decide.

Congressman Amash said today:

After the vote, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted that such a motion “would fail in Congress, too.” He later tweeted: “UK Parliament votes on going to war. Congress votes on critical things, too, like renaming post offices.”

The American people are as opposed to a strike on Syria as the Brits.

But in the same way that Bush called himself the “Decider”,  Obama is now acting like the “Concluder” regarding war with Syria.

Indeed, Obama – like Bush – has proven that he’s not very interested in following the Constitution.


These Three Maps Show Just How Much Western Power Is Surrounding Syria Right Now

MICHAEL KELLEY, GEOFFREY INGERSOLL AND MIKE NUDELMAN AUG. 28, 2013, 5:39 PM

The U.S., despite lack of U.N. approval and growing demands for legal justifications, is determined to strike Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack attributed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Earlier we posted a Reuters map that listed the U.S., British, and French forces and bases that are positioned near Syria. But that doesn’t tell the whole story, since it does not illustrate what those assets are threatening.

So we added to it with information from maps created by Foreign Policy, Agence France-Presse, the Institute for the Study of War, The Telegraph and two via BBC in addition to highlighting U.S. military bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Here’s what the Western assets in the arena currently look like:

Syria Map_Expanded

Mike Nudelman/Business Insider

SEE ALSO:  Unnamed US And Israeli Officials Say Intercepted Syrian Communications Prove Chemical Attack — UK Officials Draft UN Strike Resolution

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-western-forces-near-syria-2013-8#ixzz2dOxmi4Kp

 

22 Reasons Why Starting World War 3 In The Middle East Is A Really Bad Idea

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
August 28, 2013

USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk cruise missile March 29, 2011, in the Mediterranean Sea while operating in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk cruise missile March 29, 2011, in the Mediterranean Sea while operating in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

While most of the country is obsessing over Miley Cyrus, the Obama administration is preparing a military attack against Syria which has the potential of starting World War 3.  In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes couldbeginas early as Thursday“.  The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be “limited”, but what happens when the Syrians fight back?  What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States?  Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands.  And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel?  If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that.  And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion.  We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning.  Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers.  Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other?  Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things.  The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea…

#1 The American people are overwhelmingly against going to war with Syria…

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, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

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.

#2 At this point, a war in Syria is even more unpopular with the American people than Congress is.

#3 The Obama administration has not gotten approval to go to war with Syria from Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires.

#4 The United States does not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it.

#5 Syria has said that it will use ”all means available” to defend itself if the United States attacks.  Would that include terror attacks in the United States itself?

#6 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday

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

#7 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria.  What do you think would happen if images of sinking U.S. naval vessels were to come flashing across our television screens?

#8 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that Syria will attack Israel.  Just check out what one Syrian official said recently

A member of the Syrian Ba’ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister’s aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as “behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire” should Syria be attacked by the United States.

In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad’s fellow party member said: “We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel.”

Al-Muftah stressed that the US’s threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that “If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area’s security, but the world’s.”

#9 If Syria attacks Israel, the consequences could be absolutely catastrophic.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising that any attack will be responded to “forcefully“…

“We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully”

#10 Hezbollah will likely do whatever it can to fight for the survival of the Assad regime.  That could include striking targets inside both the United States and Israel.

#11 Iran’s closest ally is Syria.  Will Iran sit idly by as their closest ally is removed from the chessboard?

#12 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with Russia.  On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the West is acting like a “monkey with a hand grenade“.

#13 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with China.  And what will happen if the Chinese decide to start dumping the massive amount of U.S. debt that it is holding?  Interest rates would absolutely skyrocket and we would rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.

#14 Dr. Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat have compiled some startling evidence that it was actually the Syrian rebels that the U.S. is supporting that were responsible for the chemical weapons attack that is being used as justification to go to war with Syria…

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

You can examine the evidence for yourself right here.

#15 As Pat Buchanan recently noted, it would have made absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons on defenseless women and children.  The only people who would benefit from such an attack would be the rebels…

The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?

To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.

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

#16 If the Saudis really want to topple the Assad regime, they should do it themselves.  They should not expect the United States to do their dirty work for them.

#17 A former commander of U.S. Central Command has said that a U.S. attack on Syria would result in “a full-throated, very, very serious war“.

#18 A war in the Middle East will be bad for the financial markets.  The Dow was down about 170 points today and concern about war with Syria was the primary reason.

#19 A war in the Middle East will cause the price of oil to go up.  On Tuesday, the price of U.S. oil rose to about $109 a barrel.

#20 There is no way in the world that the U.S. government should be backing the Syrian rebels.  As I discussed a few days ago, the rebels have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, they have beheaded numerous Christians and they have massacred entire Christian villages.  If the U.S. government helps these lunatics take power in Syria it will be a complete and utter disaster.

#21 A lot of innocent civilians inside Syria will end up getting killed.  Already, a lot of Syrians are expressing concern about what “foreign intervention” will mean for them and their families…

“I’ve always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I’ve been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed,” said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. “I’m afraid of a military strike now.”

“The big fear is that they’ll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq,” said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. “They’ll hit civilian targets, and then they’ll cry that it was by mistake, but we’ll get killed in the thousands.”

#22 If the U.S. government insists on going to war with Syria without the approval of the American people, the U.S. Congress or the United Nations, we are going to lose a lot of friends and a lot of credibility around the globe.  It truly is a sad day when Russia looks like “the good guys” and we look like “the bad guys”.

What good could possibly come out of getting involved in Syria?  As I wrote about the other day, the “rebels” that Obama is backing are rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.  If they take control of Syria, that nation will be far more unstable and far more of a hotbed for terrorism than it is now.

And the downside of getting involved in Syria is absolutely enormous.  Syria, Iran and Hezbollah all have agents inside this country, and if they decide to start blowing stuff up that will wake up the American people to the horror of war really quick.  And by attacking Syria, the United States could cause a major regional war to erupt in the Middle East which could eventually lead to World War 3.

I don’t know about you, but I think that starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea.

Let us hope that cooler heads prevail before things spin totally out of control.

 

Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack

Intercepted phone calls indicate Syrian government did not order attack

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Intercepted phone calls that will be presented by the Obamaadministration as proof that Bashar Al-Assad was behind last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria actually suggest that the attack was not ordered by the Syrian government.

Phone calls by the Syrian Ministry of Defense intercepted by Mossad and passed to the US reveal that Syrian government officials, “exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people,” in the hours after last week’s attack.

Why would the Syrian Ministry of Defense be making panicked phone calls “demanding answers” about the attack if they had ordered it?

The fact that the highest levels of the Syrian government apparently had no knowledge of the attack strongly suggests that they did not order it, with the worst case scenario being that the attack was “the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds,” writes Foreign Policy’s Noah Shachtman.

“We don’t know exactly why it happened,” a US intelligence official told Foreign Policy. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

So despite not knowing exactly what happened, why it happened, or who ordered it, while sabotaging the UN’s investigation of the incident, the US is about to launch cruise missile attacks and potentially enflame the entireregion based on evidence that actually suggests the Syrian government had no idea who was behind the chemical weapons attack.

Meanwhile, previous evidence that suggests the US-backed rebels prepared and used chemical weapons on numerous occasions has been completely forgotten in the rush to war.

The last time the United Nations investigated evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, inspectors concluded that it was likely the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were behind the attacks.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer.

There are also multiple other examples of video footage which shows US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.

The notion that Washington has any credibility when it comes to laying blame about weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.

The last time the world believed the United States’ claims about Iraq’s non-existent WMD, hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result.

The Obama administration is about to launch the United States headlong into a conflict that could spark a new war in the Middle East, yet the very justification for the assault is being blithely accepted by the mainstream media, who have learned nothing from how their obsequious and unquestioning behavior prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq helped grease the skids for a decade of bloodshed and disaster.

 

War Media Conjures Weapons of Mass Destruction Ahead of Obama’s Syria Attack

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

Time Magazine is calling for Obama to use Clinton’s illegal 1998 Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign as a template when he bombs Syria, possibly tomorrow. Clinton’s foray into organized mass murder – designed in part to distract from his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky – lasted four days and killed hundreds of Iraqis. According to the United States, a barrage of cruise missiles were fired into Iraq to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, weapons sold to him by the United States.

Hans Blix: western media pushing war agenda ahead of Syria attack.

Time says the “trigger” for the coming bombing of Syria will be its weapons of mass destruction and “use of chemical weapons in suburbs of the Syrian capital that killed hundreds of civilians,” an “indiscriminate” attack the United States and its corporate propaganda machine say al-Assad maliciously conducted despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence he did anything of the sort.

Time insists the attack will be “rooted in weapons of mass destruction” and will target Syria’s military infrastructure. “It’ll probably be aimed at Syria’s command-and-control systems, the forces who might have been involved in using it, and maybe expanded to include higher headquarters that would have coordinated the operations,” Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Time.

The corporate war propaganda media invariably trots out neocons and other professional warmongers when it peddles excuses for mass murder under the threadbare banner of subjective and politically expedient humanitarianism. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, WINEP for short, is a “think tank” linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its “scholars” are interchangeable with those over at the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, neocon operations responsible for pushing the invasion of Iraq (death toll: approximately 1.5 million).

“It’s a lot easier to declare ‘mission accomplished’ when your objective is to blow up command posts, weapons depots and runways, instead of hunting down and destroying weapons of mass destruction, which can be elusive,” Time reports.

In fact, so elusive were Iraq’s WMDs, they were never found. George W. Bush, amply demonstrating the personality quirks of a psychopath, went so far as to contrive a stand-up comedy routine after it was conclusively demonstrated Iraq did not have WMDs. Bush and his cronies knew this.

Following Clinton’s bombing the war media told us the Pentagon went out of its way to spare innocent civilians. “While numerous Ba’ath security, intelligence, and military targets were destroyed, power and telephone systems were spared,” Michael Knights writes for the Washington Institute.

Clinton avoided bombing “dual-use infrastructure” because his predecessor had taken it out a few years before and punitive and medieval sanctions – ultimately claiming the lives of more than 500,000 Iraqi children – made sure Iraq never recovered.

“Bombing of Iraqi cities served no military purpose but was designed to destroy the civilian infrastructure,”David Model wrote in 2005. “War games in July 1990 in South Carolina trained pilots to bomb civilian targets and Pentagon statements about plans to bomb civilian targets in August and September 1990 are evidence that these targets were set well in advance of January 15, 1991.

Critical elements of the civilian infrastructure were destroyed including communication systems, oil refineries, electric generators, water treatment facilities, dams, and transportation centers. Over 90 percent of Iraq’s electrical capacity was destroyed in the first days of the bombing.

One of the most diabolical decisions in the campaign was to destroy Iraq’s water supply, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children long after the war was over. The capacity of Iraq to produce food was severely limited by the attacks on agriculture, food processing, food storage and the food distribution system. Half of Iraq’s agricultural output depended on irrigation systems which were also targeted.

Syria will be similarly targeted, but you won’t hear about it in the war propaganda media.

Time concludes:

There will be claims from Syria of innocent civilians killed (Desert Fox killed up to 2,000 Iraqis) and complaints from Syrian allies Iran and Russia that the strikes violated international law, predicts Anthony Cordesman, a military scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But, at the end of it,” he says, “they probably won’t use chemical weapons again.”

That may be the good news, relatively speaking. The bad news is that there’s no idea of what comes next for Syria, already torn apart by a 30-month civil war that has killed an estimated 100,000 people, after the all-but-certain U.S. attack.

Time does not put the 100,000 figure in context – if indeed accurate, and we have no way to verify the number for certain, it is largely the result of a civil war fomented by the United States and the CIA with their dual-use al-Qaeda mercenaries. It is an engineered civil war designed to take out the government of Bashar al-Assad and usher in a generation or more of failed state chaos in Syria.

“The conditions in Iraq ten years after the invasion do not look bright,” writes Fatih Abdulsalam. “There are more signs of division rather than unity, more signs of separation rather than coming together in regard to almost everything in the country.”

Following Obama’s attack, and subsequent attacks after the first one will undoubtedly prove insufficient, Syria’s future will also not look bright.

Once again, weapons of mass destruction serve as a pretext for a different agenda – the destruction of Syria and its removal as a geopolitical player in the region, an area increasingly dominated by the United States and its regional surrogate, Israel.

Bombshell: Evidence Syrian Rebels Carried Out Gas Attack

“It’s one of the most serious moments in world history US has ever faced”

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

In an interview with Alex Jones, American author and political commentator Dr. Jerome R. Corsi confirmed that Syrian rebels were behind the sarin gas attack in Syria last week. Video evidence and reliable Middle Eastern sources on the ground, Corsi says, prove Syrian rebels launched the attack in an attempt to take over the Syrian government.

He believes if the United States moves towards war with Syria it will surely result in World War 3.

After news broke of the alleged chemical weapons attack, Secretary of State John Kerry took to the stage giving a speech in which he called the attack a “cowardly crime” and a moral “obscenity.” Kerry claims to have “undeniable” proof of the Syrian government’s guilt, however unsurprisingly he failed to offer it to the public.

In an interview with a Russian newspaper, Syrian President Bashar Assad called the allegations “preposterous” and “completely politicized,” reported the LA Times. “How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located?”

Corsi argues several reasons for the US not to go to war with Syria. First off, the US cannot financially or economically sustain another war. “Russia and China are not borrowing $1 trillion a year to make their budget, and the world knows it,” said Corsi. Secondly, public opinion is not there, and it’s most likely not going to get there.

“The ramifications of getting into a shooting match with Russia and China is unpredictable,” said Dr. Corsi. “Risking a confrontation with Russia and possibly China is quite frightening and would become one of the most serious moments in US history.”

When Alex asked Dr. Corsi how Obama plans to get away with starting a war like this, he said Obama probably intends to continue “lying with impunity.”

A report by WND reveals evidence assembled from various Middle Eastern sources that “cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.”

Photo: Dr. Jerome Corsi

Photo: Dr. Jerome Corsi

WND’s report says two YouTube videos show what looks like “Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.”

A screen capture from a Syrian TV report shows a chemical agent that appears to have been made in a “Saudi factory.” Another report from RT illustrates “captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia and gas masks,” support Russian claims that rebels are the culprits.

The report further states that an intercepted phone call between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia and his Saudi Arabian boss indicates Syrian terrorists, not the Assad government, were behind the chemical weapons attack.

“The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.

“The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus,” reported WND.

 

In Rush to Strike Syria, US Tried to Derail UN Probe

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON – After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation.

The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.

In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the U.N. investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.

The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the U.N. investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the U.N. as hindering its plans for an attack.

Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the U.N. team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”.

After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely.

The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “U.S. officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.”

But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of U.S. policy, refused to withdraw the U.N. team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the U.N. inspectors to “continue their work”.

The Journal said “U.S. officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.”

The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the U.S. position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said.

That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington PostSunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area.

“[W]e don’t at this point have confidence that the U.N. can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”

Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.

Despite the U.S. effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of “delay”, the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York Tuesday.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day.

Haq sharply disagreed with the argument made by Kerry and the State Department that it was too late to obtain evidence of the nature of the Aug. 21 incident.

“Sarin can be detected for up to months after its use,” he said.

Specialists on chemical weapons also suggested in interviews with IPS that the U.N. investigating team, under a highly regarded Swedish specialist Ake Sellstom and including several experts borrowed from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, should be able to either confirm or disprove the charge of an attack with nerve or another chemical weapon within a matter of days.

Ralph Trapp, a consultant on proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, said he was “reasonably confident” that the U.N. team could clarify what had happened.

“They can definitely answer the question [of] whether there was a chemical attack, and they can tell which chemical was used,” he said, by collecting samples from blood, urine and hair of victims. There was even “some chance” of finding chemical residue from ammunition pieces or craters where they landed.

Trapp said it would take “several days” to complete an analysis.

Steve Johnson, who runs a programme in chemical, biological and radiological weapons forensics at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom, said that by the end of the week the U.N. might be able to answer whether “people died of a nerve agent.”

Johnson said the team, if pushed, could produce “some kind of view” on that issue within 24 to 48 hours.

Dan Kastesza, a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps and a former adviser to the White House on chemical and biological weapons proliferation, told IPS the team will not be looking for traces of the nerve gas sarin in blood samples but rather chemicals produced when sarin degrades.

But Kastesza said that once samples arrive at laboratories, specialists could make a determination “in a day or two” about whether a nerve agent or other chemical weapons had been used.

The real reason for the Obama administration’s hostility toward the U.N. investigation appears to be the fear that the Syrian government’s decision to allow the team access to the area indicates that it knows that U.N. investigators will not find evidence of a nerve gas attack.

The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of U.N. inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD programme.

In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise.

© 2013 IPS North America

 

Obama Ignores Congress on Approval For Syria Attack

56 bipartisan House members demand President follow Constitution

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

The White House has so far failed to respond to a letter signed by 56 bipartisan members of Congress asking President Obama to get congressional approval for an attack on Syria, despite Obama himself affirming the constitutional necessity of such an authorization during his 2008 campaign.

The letter, written by Virginia Rep. Scott Rigell, strongly urges Obama, “to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria, adding, “Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.”

It goes on to stress that launching an offensive act of war when the United States is not directly threatened with a green light from Congress is unconstitutional, citing Obama’s decision to order the use of “221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles,” against Libya in 2011 with zero congressional approval.

Rigell is asking Obama to reconvene Congress so that lawmakers can carefully study the evidence and the necessity for the United States to become directly embroiled in the conflict in Syria.

According to Rep. Rigell’s official Twitter page, 56 members of Congress from both parties have signed onto the letter, a number which is growing by the hour.

However, on Sunday, 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.

It’s highly unlikely that Obama will adhere to the constitution by seeking congressional approval for any assault on Syria given his attitude under similar circumstances before the 2011 attack on Libya.

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.”

Obama’s hostility towards getting Congressional approval before launching military attacks in ironic given that both he and Vice President Joe Biden made reference to that very necessity during their 2008 campaign. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said in 2008.

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.”

Obama’s rebuff of Congress during the attack on Libya was followed by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s astounding claim that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military.

During a March 2012 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Panetta responded to a question about whether the administration would consult Congress before future conflicts by responding, “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

The difference this time around is that Obama is not even bothering to claim his moral authority from the UN, never mind Congress, with the US indicating that it will launch cruise missile strikes within days without first obtaining a UN Security Council resolution.

 

WW3? Syrian, Iranian Officials Say Israel Will Be “Set On Fire” If US Strikes

Netanyahu calls up reserve forces; Huge US military build up in Qatar; Russia evacuates citizens from Syria
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Aug 28, 2013

Senior Syrian and Iranian officials have again warned that should the US pursue military action in Syria, thestate of Israel will find itself firmly and immediately in their crosshairs.

“If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted too and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a license for attacking Israel,” said a Syrian army official in comments to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

“We are rest assured that if Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria’s neighbors,” the official said, maintaining anonymity during the interview.

The army official also stated that if the US chooses to help Al Qaeda-linked jihadists in Syria, their will be significant blowback in Israel.

“Weakening the central government in Damascus will actually start growing attacks on Israel and will create insecurity for that regime,” he said.

“Thus, a U.S. attack on Syria will herald frequent strikes and attacks on Israel, not just by Damascus and its allies in retaliation, but by extremist groups who will find a ground for staging their aspirations,” the official added.

Senior Iranian officials echoed the comments, with Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director-general of the parliament for International Affairs telling Fars News that “the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria.”

Iranian Member of Parliament Mansur Haqiqatpur was also quoted as saying that “In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime.”

The fresh threats come in the wake of similar comments made earlier in the week by Syrian Deputy Information Minister Halaf Al-Maftah who warned that Israel will “come under fire” should the United states strike against the Assad regime. He added that the Syrian government has “strategic weapons aimed at Israel,” and warned that “If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the regionwill go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area’s security, but the world’s.”

Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom quoted Muftah as also warning “It’s possible to say unambiguously that a process of war against Syria could lead to an all-out world war. The responsibility for that will rest on the US and the Zionist entity’s shoulders.”

The Beirut Daily Star quoted a “senior source close to” Hezbollah as saying that in the event of major Western strike against Syria “Hezbollah will fight on various fronts,” and predicting an immediate “inferno of a war with Israel.”

Pro-Hezbollah cleric, Afif Nabulsi, who is closely aligned with the Syrian and Iranian governments, was also quoted as saying that “any [US] strike against Syria will be met by harsh responses against US interests in theregion and against Israel directly.”

Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour stated in a radio interview that the country would retaliate if Israel “exploits a strike against Syria to attack Hezbollah.”

In response to the threats, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said “The State of Israel is ready for any scenario.” Following a meeting with security officials in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said “We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength.”

According to Israeli intelligence website DEBKAfile, the Israeli security cabinet held another emergency meeting today, ordering the partial mobilization of select, qualitative IDF reserve forces: Rocket, Air Force, missile interception, Home Defense command and intelligence units.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that an American military operation on Syria is scheduled to start Friday night, early Saturday Aug. 30-31. The report adds that US forces are finalizing a a major buildup at the huge US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

“US air force reinforcements in Qatar will stand ready to rush to the aid of US allies – Israel, Jordan and Turkey – in the event of their coming under Syrian Scud attack.” the report states, adding that on the opposite side the Syrian army has been scattering personnel, weapons and air assets to pre prepared fortified shelters in order to limit damage and losses.

“Syrian army command centers in Homs, Hama, Latakia and the Aleppo region were also being split up and dispersed, after a tip-off to Syrian and Russian intelligence that they would be targeted by the US strike.” the report adds.

The Associated Press also reports that Israel has ordered a special call-up of hundreds of reserve troops to beef up civil defense preparations and to operate air-defense units near the border. Defense officials have confirmed the deployment of Iron Dome and Patriot missile-defense batteries in areas near the Syrian border, stating that they believe a US strike on Syria is imminent.

Israeli security and rescue forces are also engaged in a two-day drill in the Golan Heights along the Syrian border.

The intelligence supposedly handed to the US and its allies suggesting that the Syrian army was involved in the chemical attacks last week is said to have come predominantly via Israeli intelligence agencies.

While Chinese and Russian officials continue to warn of the grave global consequences of a US strike on Syria, Russian citizens are currently being evacuated out of the country.

Meanwhile even firebrand broadcaster Glenn Beck has come out against intervention in Syria, warning that because of China and Russia’s alignment with Iran and Syria, a wider war in the middle east would mean that the US “would not survive”.

Beck warned that “this is World War 3 in the making,” noting the Obama administration is on the exact same destructive warpath that the Bush government set out on 12 years ago.

Beck desperately appealed to his conservative listener base to find common ground with real liberals and hold huge anti-war rallies.

Wall Street Journal: Whack al-Assad and His Family

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

In Mafia don fashion, the Wall Street Journal, on occasion correctly referred to as the War Street Journal, has called for whacking Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, his brother Maher and wife Asma, and apparently his children, Hafez, Zein and Karim.

Neocon hack for WSJ wants to kill this family. Photo: Camera Press

Neocon hack for WSJ wants to kill this family. Photo: Camera Press

“Should President Obama decide to order a military strike against Syria, his main order of business must be to kill Bashar Assad,” writes Bret Stephens. “Also, Bashar’s brother and principal henchman, Maher. Also, everyone else in the Assad family with a claim on political power. Also, all of the political symbols of the Assad family’s power, including all of their official or unofficial residences.”

Stephens, a favorite of the global elite (the World Economic Forum designated him a “Young Global Leader” in 2004), is a former editor of the Jerusalem Post, the neocon editorial outpost in Israel.

Bashar, his wife, and children must be butchered, Stephens argues, because the “world can ill-afford a reprise of the 1930s, when the barbarians were given free rein by a West that had lost its will to enforce global order.”

Indeed, the “barbarians were given free rein,” not by loss of will, but because of it as Antony Sutton and others have documented.

Hitler was a creature of German industrialists and Wall Street financiers, a fact ignored when the Nuremberg Military Tribunals hunted down, prosecuted and executed politically expedient scapegoats.

It is interesting how the neocon apologist Stephens is advocating something Nazi thugs and butchers were comfortable with – summary execution of entire families for alleged crimes containing political weight for his establishment paymasters.

Like Hillary Clinton’s witchy cackle upon learning that Col. Muammar Gaddafi was sodomized and then knifed to death as NATO and the United States systematically murdered 30,000 Libyans, Stephens’ cold-blooded proposition that Bashar al-Assad and his family must be murdered reeks of the sort of demented pathology that dominates the establishment media these days.

 

SYRIA: US AIDED TERRORISTS IN CHEMICAL ATTACK, EUROPE NEXT

Anthony Gucciardi

by Anthony Gucciardi
August 28th, 2013
Updated 08/28/2013 at 5:13 pm

In an explosive declaration, Syria’s deputy foreign minister has now come out on record in declaring that the US, Britain, and France were instrumental in aiding the chemical attacks on Syria through a network of terrorists inside the country.

I spoke earlier on this subject with Alex Jones on the Alex Jones Show to break it down:

Going further with the intel on the subject, the Syrian official now says that the next target will be Europe. Confirming earlier reports by myself and powerhouse journalist Paul Joseph Watson that there was a US government element involved in the planning of the key chemical attacks as documented by Yahoo News, the deputy foreign minister told reporters outside of the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus that he had even presented the United Nations chemical weapons inspectors with bombshell information that reveals the US helped in ‘arming terrorist groups’ to carry out the attacks

The admission is now featured on Reuters as a headline piece titled ‘Syria says ‘terrorists’ will strike Europe with chemical weapons’. The report goes on to state:

“Syria’s deputy foreign minister said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Syria, and that the same groups would soon use them against Europe. Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence that “armed terrorist groups” had used sarin gas in all the sites of alleged attacks.”

To break it down plainly, the deputy foreign minister is now adding power behind the January 2013 leaked emails that revealed plans for a major chemical attack as a pretext to war. Emails that, regardless of validity, detail the predictable patterns used to initiate war through orchestrated attacks. One such juggernaut was Yahoo News, which reported:

“The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to usechemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.”

Will this information be ignored by mainstream media talking heads and politicians despite its massive significance in the heated WW3-tied Syrian conflict? Unless we blast it out and force the mega news media to cover it, the answer is yes.

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/syria-us-aided-terrorists-in-chemical-attack-europe-next/#ixzz2dP6Kjy5c

 

Syrians Scramble to Hide From Obama’s Humanitarian Love Bombs

“Every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

Despite the US and Britain justifying an imminent attack on Syria in the name of “protecting civilians,” Syrians themselves are scrambling to hide from Obama’s humanitarian love bombs, with one Damascus resident telling Reuters, “We live in the capital. Every turn, every street, every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?”

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Although a torrent of criticism has forced both Washington and London to move towards some kind of symbolic gesture involving the United Nations, a senior US official told NBC News today “we’re past the point of return” and that US air strikes against Syrian targets would inevitably occur “within days.”

That leaves thousands of Syrians living in major cities already ravaged by nearly two years of civil war and western-backed Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks looking up to the skies in anticipation of a fresh delivery of cruise missiles – all in the name of “protecting civilians” of course.

As Reuters reports, “dozens of military sites are mixed in among the civilian population,” meaning that western attacks will almost inevitably mean more loss of life, not to mention the wider threat of a new war in the Middle East.

Syrians have now begun hoarding supplies, including water, batteries, and food, with “the fear in people’s eyes” all too visible, while banks have been inundated with customers attempting to withdraw all their money.

People are fleeing in an effort to rent houses away from military sites, but many cannot afford skyrocketing prices in safer areas.

“What about my friend?” asked a woman whose family was lucky enough to be lent a house in a safe area. “Her whole family lives in this neighborhood. There is no place for them to go.”

With Syria about to become the 7th country to be on the receiving end of the Peace Prize winner’s humanitarian lovefest, let us not forget the fantastic success that this policy of taking a complex political problem and bombing it had in Libya.

Just as it did in Libya, the US is about to become “Al-Qaeda’s air force,” paving the way for extremist jihadists to seize power and turn Syria into their personal thug-rule thiefdom.

Two years after Obama’s love bombs rained down in Tripoli, Libya is now plagued by violence and chaos, has seen its economy collapse, is controlled by brutal tribes who imprison and torture their alleged political adversaries, and has become “the main base for Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.”

Now it’s Syria’s turn to experience what happens to countries who dare assert their sovereignty by attempting to fight back against an invasion of NATO and Gulf state-supplied terrorists.

Those Syrians who do manage to hide from Obama and Cameron’s humanitarian love bombs may escape death but the future of their country might not be much worth living for.

 

Farage: UK govt keenest of all on Syria intervention, decision already made

RT
August 29, 2013

The British government is the most enthusiastic country in the entire international community to get involved in Syria, and the decision on intervention has already been made, believes leader of UK Independence Party Nigel Farage.

 

U.S. Admits It Has No Idea WHO Carried Out Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

Washington’s Blog
August 29, 2013

Even though the U.S. government claims that the Syrian government is the perpetrator of the chemical weapons attack, it admits that it has no idea who in the government ordered the attack. It could have been a rogue, low-level military officer.

Credit: Sgt. Andrew D. Pendracki via Flickr

Credit: Sgt. Andrew D. Pendracki via Flickr

Foreign Policy reports:

With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad’s government is responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack. They just don’t know who in the Syrian government is to blame.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. “The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if … he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, ‘Go,’ on this,” Harf said. “I don’t know what the facts are here….”

On Tuesday, The Cable reported that U.S. officials are basing theirassessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike ….

***

Because of that lack of clarity, Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.

In effect, Harf was left arguing that because no one else could have carried out the attack, it must have been the Syrian government. “The world doesn’t need a classified U.S. intelligence assessment to see the photos and the videos of these people and to know that the only possible entity in Syria that could do this to their own people is the regime,” she said.

Given that U.N. inspectors with a mandate to investigate chemical weapons use were on the ground when the attack happened, the decision to deploy what appears to have been a nerve agent in a suburb east of Damascus has puzzled many observers. Why would Syria do such a thing when it is fully aware that the mass use of chemical weapons is the one thing that might require the United States to take military action against it? That’s a question U.S. intelligence analysts are puzzling over as well. “We don’t know exactly why it happened,” the intelligence official said. “We just know it was pretty fucking stupid.”

Pressed on whether the United States would still consider itself justified in launching a punitive strike if the chemical weapons were deployed by a “rogue officer,” Harf said, “yes,” before quickly adding a caveat: “But that’s also a wildly conjecturous question.”

Given that American, British and other Western soldiers have pleaded guilty to massacring civilians and committing war crimes, should we condemn the entire Syrian regime if it turns out to be a crime carried out by one rogue officer?

 

Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007

Mike Krieger
Liberty Blitzkrieg
August 29, 2013

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama with his Nobel Peace Prize (Photo: Public Domain)

Obama with his Nobel Peace Prize (Photo: Public Domain)

Obama:  The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

– Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007 (full text here)

Ok, so Obama lied again…what’s new.

Well what’s new is that launching missiles into Syria right now could lead to a much wider global conflagration, i.e. World War III.

I don’t think anybody wants that.

Or do they?

It actually seems as if the sociopaths in charge of these United States DO want this, and therefore we must do everything we can to prevent it from happening.

Not only is it key to inform people how ridiculous it is to say a chemical weapons attack is a reason for war when the U.S. government itself aided Saddam Hussein in chemical warfare in the 1980′s, but we must also explain to people that use of force in Syria is entirely unconstitutional.

While candidate Obama clearly understood this, President Obama is suffering from another case of chronic constitutional amnesia, a condition he developed on or around January 19, 2009.

This maniac, who we call President, is suddenly parading around like this war is his to start.

As if he is some sort of Emperor.

Well it is not, and he is not.

Somehow the Big O, our precious “constitutional scholar,” must have skipped over Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If you need a reminder, here it goes:

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Got that Barry? Go to Congress.

In Liberty,
Mike

 

Will War With Syria Cause The Price Of Oil To Explode Higher?

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
August 29, 2013

Are you ready to pay four, five or possibly even six dollars for a gallon of gasoline?

Credit: Flcelloguy via Wikimedia Commons

Credit: Flcelloguy via Wikimedia Commons

War has consequences, and a conflict with Syria has the potential to escalate wildly out of control very rapidly.

The Obama administration is pledging that the upcoming attack on Syria will be “brief and limited” and that the steady flow of oil out of the Middle East will not be interrupted.

But what happens if Syria strikes back?

What happens if Syrian missiles startraining down on Tel Aviv?

What happens if Hezbollah or Iran starts attacking U.S. or Israeli targets?

Unless Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all stand down and refuse to fight back, we could very easily be looking at a major regional war in the Middle East, and that could cause the price of oil to explode higher.

Syria is not a major oil producer, but approximately a third of all of the crude oil in the world is produced in the Middle East.

If the Suez Canal or the Persian Gulf (or both) get shut down for an extended period of time, the consequences would be dramatic.

The price of oil has already risen about 15% so far this summer, and war in the Middle East could potentially send it soaring into record territory.

We can always hope that cooler heads prevail and that a conflict is avoided, but at this point it does not look like that is going to happen.  In fact, according to Richard Engel of NBC News, a senior U.S. official has admitted that “we’re past the point of return” and that a strike on Syria can be expected within days.

Obama is promising that the U.S. will “take limited, tailored approaches”, and that we will not be “getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about”, but how in the world can he guarantee that?

Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have all threatened to attack Israel if the U.S. attacks Syria.

If missiles start raining down on Israeli cities, the Israelis are not just going to sit there and take it like they did during the first Gulf War.  In fact, according to the Los Angeles Times, “Israeli leaders are making it clear that they have no intention of standing down this time if attacked”.

If Israel is attacked, their military response will be absolutely massive.

And then we will have the major regional war in the Middle East that so many people have been warning about for so many years.  Hundreds of thousands of people will die and the global economy will be paralyzed.

So what will Obama do in such a situation?

Will he pack up and go home?

Of course not.  We would be committed to fighting a brutal, horrific war that there was absolutely no reason tostart in the first place.

And we are already starting to feel the effect of rising tensions in the Middle East.  This week, the price of oil rose to a 10-month high

U.S. oil prices soared to an 18-month high as traders worried that a potential military strike against Syria could disrupt the region’s oil supplies.

October crude futures surged 2.9%, to $109.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, their highest close since February 2012. Brent futures ended up 3.2% at $114.28 a barrel, a six-month high.

Posted below is a chart that shows how the price of oil has moved over the past several decades.  Could we soon break the all-time record of $147 a barrel that was set back in 2008?…

The Price Of Oil

And of course we all remember what happened when the price of oil got that high back in 2008.  The global economy was plunged into the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

A major conflict in the Middle East, especially if it goes on for an extended period of time, could send the price of oil to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Every single day, a massive amount of oil is moved through the Suez Canal.  The following is from a recent Wall Street Journal article

To the southwest is the Suez Canal, one such chokepoint, which connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of the Suez with the Mediterranean Sea. The canal transports about 800,000 barrels of crude and 1.4 million barrels of petroleum products daily, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Another regional oil shipping route potentially threatened by the Syria crisis is the Sumed, or Suez-Mediterranean, pipeline, also in Egypt, which moves oil from the Persian Gulf region to the Mediterranean. The Sumed handles 1.7 million barrels of crude oil per day, the EIA said.

And of course an enormous amount of oil moves through the Persian Gulf each day as well.  If the Suez Canal and/or the Persian Gulf were to be shut down, there would almost immediately be global supply problems.

So how high could the price of oil go?

Well, according to CNBC, some analysts believe that $150 a barrel could easily be hit if the U.S. attacks Syria…

Some analysts believe even U.S. crude, West Texas Intermediate (WTI crude) could get close to the $150 zone. “If oil prices spike on the Syria attack, and surge above $120, the next logical upside target is going to be the 2008 high of $147, which could easily be taken out,” said John Kilduff of Again Capital. “It’s the retaliation to the retaliation that we have to be worried about.”

If the price of oil soars up to that level and keeps going, we could see the price of gasoline go up to four, five or maybe even six dollars a gallon in some areas of the country.

You better start saving up lots of gas money.

It looks like you are going to need it.

 

Russia Sends Warships to Mediterranean; Denies Syria Link

Missile cruiser & anti-submarine ship head to troubled region

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 29, 2013

The Russian Navy has denied that the dispatch of two warships to the eastern Mediterranean is linked to western military action against Syria, despite Interfax quoting a source in the armed forces’ general staff who said the deployment was in response to the “well-known situation”.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

As part of plans to have five or six vessels stationed in the region, initial reports stated that Russia had sent an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to waters near Syria because the crisis “required us to make some adjustments” in the naval force, according to Interfax.

However, within hours a Russian Naval spokesperson told RIA Novosti that the maneuvers were part of planned rotation and not linked to the worsening situation in Syria.

“The vessels in the Mediterranean, like those in other parts of the world, act under plans by the Russian Naval Command and General Staff, and fulfil tasks set,” the Naval spokesperson said.

“On completion of these tasks, the vessels then either return to their bases, or are replaced by other vessels to complete the tasks set,” the spokesperson said, adding “This does not amount to a renewal of any grouping or groupings, it is a planned rotation.”

According to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the US think tank the Heritage Foundation, a western attack on Syria would prompt Russia to “deploy a permanent naval squadron in the Mediterranean and accelerate the search for naval bases and anchorages, such as Tartus and Latakiyeh in Syria.”

Russia has consistently supported the Syrian government and repeatedly vetoed efforts by Britain and the US to secure the green light for military intervention via the UN Security Council. Efforts by Downing Street to propose a new draft resolution that would have greased the skids for cruise missile attacks were rebuffed by Russia and China yesterday.

Both Russia and China have warned that a military attack on Syria would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region.

Obama’s Syria Attack Rationale Crumbles

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 29, 2013

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, stated the obvious on Wednesday — under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war.

Obama says he has not made a decision on attacking Syria.

Mr. Nadler’s concern was reflected in the following statement issued as Obama and a handful of warmongers, most notably Arizona Senator John McCain and South Carolina Senator Linsey Graham, prepared to attack Syria despite overwhelming opposition by the American people and Obama’s apparent vacillation:

The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress — not by the President. The decision to go to war — and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war — is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. “Consultation” with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.

Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner has called on Obama to provide a rationale for attacking Syria. Boehner and a growing number of other members of Congress are demanding an explanation ahead of a military attack. Obama needs to provide “a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action — which is a means, not a policy — will secure U.S. Objectives,” Boehner said in a letter to Obama.

“We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement. The Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, not the president,” said Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday.

Congress is currently on recess and will have the option of connecting to a briefing on Thursday by the Obamaadministration on the planned attack via a secured line.

Officialdom Admits No Evidence of Syrian Complicity in Chemical Attack Exists

Intelligence officialdom in the United States now believes the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on civilians is not a “slam dunk,” a basketball phrase used by former CIA director George Tenet in 2002 to describe Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that in fact did not exist and the government knew didn’t exist.

On Thursday, congressional committees were briefed on a report “thick with caveats” from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence making a case that al-Assad’s military used chemical weapons. Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion earlier this week that it is “undeniable” al-Assad used chemical weapons, the report states there is no direct evidence the Syrian military is responsible for the attack.

“U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said,” the Associated Press reports today.

The New York Times admitted the Obama administration faces “steep hurdles” as it “prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.”

As usual, the New York Times is letting a demonstrated war criminal off the hook easy. Powell in fact knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and not only embellished dubious intelligence reports, but outright lied about them as Bob Woodward noted in his book, Plan of Attack.

If the New York Times is around in ten years – and it might go away because dead tree dinosaurs eventually reach their nadir – it will probably conjure up likewise excuses for Secretary of State John Kerry and his “undeniable” evidence that is now crumbling.

Syria resolution authorizing military force fails in U.N. Security Council

Updated at 4:48 p.m. ET

UNITED NATIONS The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council failed to reach an agreement Wednesday on a British-proposed resolution that would authorize the use of military force against Syria, as the U.N. chief pleaded for more time for diplomacy.

Play VIDEO

Family flees Syria for third time

Play VIDEO

Would U.S. strike Syria without the U.N.?

Play VIDEO

U.S. strengthens case for military strike against Syria

Play VIDEO

Intercepted communications, tissue samples prove Syrian regime responsible for gas attack

Play VIDEO

Syrian opposition ready for U.S. intervention

The draft resolution — if it were to be put to a vote — would almost certainly be vetoed by Russia and China, which have blocked past attempts to sanction President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Late Wednesday, Britain’s mission to the U.N. said no decision had been made on moving forward with its resolution, CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk reports from U.N. headquarters in New York.

After the council fell short of reaching an agreement, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters in Washington that the U.S. sees "no avenue forward" given Russia’s past opposition to action by the council on Syria.

"We’ve consistently said that we support U.N. Security Council action," Harf told reporters. "Instead, what we’ve seen, not just today, not just last week, but over the course of many months, is the Russians at every move doing things to fail to hold the Syrian regime accountable."

Britain put forth the proposal Wednesday as momentum seemed to be building among Western allies for a strike against Syria. U.S. officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have charged that Assad’s government used deadly chemical weapons near Damascus last week.

The U.S. has not presented concrete proof, and U.N. inspectors currently in Syria to investigate alleged chemical attacks have not endorsed the allegations.

The American government’s assessment is based on the circumstantial evidence from videos posted on the Internet, and, as CBS News correspondent David Martin reported Tuesday, intelligence – much of it still classified – ranging from intercepted Syrian communications to tests of tissue samples taken from victims.

The U.N. envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said Wednesday that evidence suggests some kind of "substance" was used that killed hundreds on Aug. 21.

Falk reports that the five permanent members of the Security Council met in a closed-door, informal meeting to discuss the U.K. resolution Wednesday morning, with Russia and China leaving after an hour and the U.S., France and the U.K. remaining for another hour.

None of the countries’ representatives, including U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power and British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, commented on a plan to move forward.

After the ambassadors met, the draft resolution was being sent back to their governments for consultations, according to a Western diplomat, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

The diplomat said Russia reiterated its objections to international intervention in the Syrian crisis.

A spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron said in London that the British draft resolution would authorize "all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons."

Chapter 7 allows the use of international armed force to back up U.N. decisions.

12 PHOTOS

Portraits of Syria’s displaced

Speaking Wednesday from The Hague, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said no action should be taken until the U.N. chemical weapons inspectors finish their work.

"Let them conclude … their work for four days and then we will have to analyze scientifically" their findings and send a report to the Security Council, he said.

The U.N. said the analysis would be done "as quickly as possible."

Ban also pleaded for more time to give diplomacy another chance to end the more than two-year conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people.

But the secretary-general added that the Security Council must not go "missing in action."

Meanwhile, U.N. chemical weapons experts on Wednesday took biological samples from several victims of last week’s purported attack, activists said Wednesday.

11 PHOTOS

Syrian refugees – what they carried

Fear of a dramatic escalation in the two-and-a-half-year conflict prompted some 6,000 Syrians to flee into Lebanon over a 24-hour period, or more than six times the average daily flow.

A jittery Israel ordered a special call-up of reserve troops Wednesday as residents lined up at gas-mask distribution centers, preparing for possible hostilities with Syria.

A week after the purported attack, momentum has been building for a possible strike by the U.S. and its allies against the Assad regime.

At the same time, Syria’s main allies Russia and Iran warned of dire consequences for the region if a military intervention is launched.

Syria, which sits on one of the world’s largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, has denied the charges.

Local opposition activists told CBS News that a convoy of U.N. inspectors had reached the town of Mleiha, in the sprawling Ghouta area, and videos posted online by the activists showed them interviewing patients at clinics in Mleiha and the nearby town of Zamalka.

One video showed the inspectors visiting a clinic and interviewing a man through a translator. Two inspectors were present as a nurse leaned over a man lying on an exam table. One of the experts is heard in the video saying he and his team members have collected blood, urine and hair samples.

One activist said the team took hair and skin samples of five suspected victims in Zamalka during a 90-minute visit. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of regime reprisals.

The U.N. team in Syria did not issue a statement about Wednesday’s trip.

26 PHOTOS

The toll of Syria’s war

Marking the centenary of a venue for peaceful conflict resolution, the U.N.’s Ban said: "Here in the Peace Palace, let us say: Give peace a chance. Give diplomacy a chance. Stop fighting and start talking."

The growing fear of escalation sent wider ripples across the region.

Lebanese security officials in the country’s Bekaa Valley near the border with Syria said at least 6,000 Syrians have crossed into Lebanon in the past 24 hours through the main Masnaa border crossing, including an estimated 4,000 on Wednesday.

The normal daily rate is 500 to 1,000 Syrian refugees coming to Lebanon, depending on the level of fighting.

20 PHOTOS

Two years of strife in Syria

Witnesses said they saw long lines of cars packed with families and belongings at the crossing. There was also traffic in the other direction — a security official said around 2,000 crossed into Syria on Wednesday — but many of them said they were going in to evacuate relatives from Syria.

Um Ahmad, 45, crossed to Lebanon with her five children Wednesday, fearing U.S. strikes on Damascus.

"Isn’t it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?" she said, declining to give her full name for security concerns.

Her husband said they have no one in Lebanon but came anyway because of their children. "What will we do here, where will we go? I don’t know — but hopefully we’ll be safe."

Nearly 2 million Syrians have fled their country since the crisis began in March 2011, and millions more are displaced inside Syria.

14 PHOTOS

Wounded Syrians treated in Israel

In Israel, the government ordered a "limited" call-up of reserve units to beef up civil defense preparations and to operate air-defense units near the border. Officials said the call-up is anticipated to bring in "hundreds" of troops.

Israel fears that Syria may respond by attacking the Jewish state, a close American ally. While Israeli officials believe the chances of a Syrian strike remain slim, people were clearly preparing for the possibility.

Large crowds lined up at gas-mask distribution centers. Maya Avishai of the Israeli postal service, which oversees gas mask distribution, said demand has tripled in recent days. About five million Israelis, roughly 60 percent of the population, now have gas masks, she said.

Jordan, meanwhile, said it will not be used as a launching pad for attacks on Syriaand the kingdom favors a diplomatic solution to the crisis. A U.S.-led strike would involve cruise missile attacks from the sea, which would not need to cross or make use of Jordanian territory.

But the remarks underline the U.S. ally’s efforts to avoid further friction with its larger neighbor for fear that Assad or his Iranian backers could retaliate.

The remarks come a day after Jordan hosted a meeting of top commanders from Western and Middle Eastern countries, including some that are likely to participate in a military action.

"Jordan will not be a launching pad for any military action against Syria," said Information Minister Mohammad Momani.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement that any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and a threat to international peace and security.

He stopped short, however, of squarely putting the responsibility on the Assad regime, citing only "information available from a wide variety of sources" as pointing to the Syrian regime as being behind the attack.

Two of Syria’s staunchest backers, Iran and Russia, warned of dire consequences if the U.S. and its allies attack in Syria.

Such strikes "will lead to the long-term destabilization of the situation in the country and the region," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that attacking Syria would be catastrophic for the entire Middle East.

"Intervention of foreign and extra-regional powers in a country has no result other than sparking fire," Iran’s state TV quoted Khamenei as saying. "Waging a war is like a spark in a gunpowder store … its dimensions and consequences can’t be predicted."


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…


Tepco Lies Again, Admits Radioactive Leak “May” Have Started A Month Earlier

Zero Hedge
August 28, 2013

Remember that recently announced leak at Fukushima (which we first noted nearly a month ago), which Tepco promised was nothing really, only to subsequently admit 300 tons of radioactive water was seeping out of the destroyed nuclear power plant daily into the ocean (and everywhere else), a leak which subsequently was raised from a stage 1 to stage 3 in radioactive severity, and that it had for all intents and purposes lost control of the containment process, oh and, by the way, it would no longer lie about how severe the situation truly was?

Credit: Nicolas Raymond via Flickr

Credit: Nicolas Raymond via Flickr

Well, turns out it lied. As Businessweek reports, “the leak at a contaminated water storage tankdiscovered last week at the Fukushima plant may have continued since last month before it was detected and the tank drained, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.

“May” being the operative word here. Just like “glitch” is the operative word when, daily, something breaks in the markets usually around the time AAPLtakes out a major support level.

The lie exposure continues:

“Crews found elevated levels of radiation in July near where the leak was ultimately detected on Aug. 19, Mayumi Yoshida, a spokeswoman for the utility known as Tepco, said today by phone.

Tepco originally characterized the leak as a small one before determining by the change in the tank’s water level that 300 metric tons of contaminated water had escaped. A protective barrier around the tank didn’t stop the leak because a valve in the concrete structure had been left open, Tepco said.

Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority last week labeled the leak a “serious incident” in its worst assessment of the problems at Fukushima since the earthquake and tsunami of 2011 caused reactors to melt down.

The good thing is that, just like in Syria with the whole false flag Syrian chemical weapon theater, “democratic” government bureaucrats always tell their citizens the truth, not only because they are entitled to it, but because said bureaucrats always hold the truth so much dearer than their largely irrelevant bureaucraticcareers.

Even if, on occasion, they fib a little, and millions of innocent people die or are irradiated. Hey, nobody said centrally-planning an insolvent world was easy, or that mistakes wouldn’t be made.