Friday, August 30, 2013

Obama meets with Magic Johnson, snubs Congress on Syria

well you know these faggots allways have to strick together

Obama meets with Magic Johnson, has no time to meet with Congress on Syria

Getty Images

Subscribe
Follow:

August 30, 2013

On Thursday, 26 members of Congress were invited to participate in a conference call with administration officials on the situation in Syria. White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice tweeted that she, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, met with members of Congress by phone. But President Obama did not participate in the call. Obama did, however, find time to meet with Magic Johnson.
"I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would be in a working meeting with the smartest and most powerful leader in the world," Johnson said of Obama.
"Working side by side with the President on getting America back working is bigger and better than the 5 NBA Championships I won," he said in another tweet.
Johnson also said he met with Obama, Valerie Jarrett, other White House staffers and "some very smart people."
"Great meeting! Thanks, Magic," Jarrett said in response.
Twitchy said that Johnson is "apparently taking the place of the now-disbanded President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."
A post at Weasel Zippers excoriated Obama for skipping the call while meeting with the basketball star..
"You cannot conduct foreign policy like a political campaign, and just dial in fancy rhetoric. Even if you can buffalo your supporters, you cannot fool the rest of the world," the blog said.
The post also said that Obama "apparently skipped out on another meeting on Syria Tuesday night to meet with the family of Trayvon Martin, among other things."
According to the Daily Caller, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama plans to to hold “robust consultation” with Congress and the president may address the American public.
“The president believes it is important to have a dialogue with the American public,” he said.
The White House maintains that the Assad regime is responsible for a chemical attack against hundreds of Syrians and the use of those weapons against Syrian citizens is in the national security interest of the United States.
On Thursday, the British Parliament voted against action in Syria, but it appears Obama is willing to "go it alone" if necessary, and has deployed a fifth warship to the region.
Related:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit and like his Facebook page, or subscribe to receive email updates when a new article is published.
For hard-hitting conservative commentary, please visit Joe's blog, the Conservative Firing Line. You can also find Joe's articles at Right News Now, Tea Party Tribune, Liberty Unyielding and PolitiCollision.
Be sure to listen to "Grit and Grace" every Thursday from 6-8 p.m. Pacific Time on Blog Talk Radio, where you can hear Joe discuss current events.

Suggested by the author

Harry Belafonte: Obama should work like third world dictator and jail GOP

Renowned author: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens

Liberal Daily Kos diarist calls for 'benevolent' Obama dictatorship

President Obama: Troops 'fighting on my behalf'

Did President Obama give a top secret military drone to Iran?

Reactions to DOJ Marijuana Memo: Dismay, Exuberance, Skepticism

Jacob Sullum|Aug. 29, 2013 3:58 pm

CNNThe Justice Department's newly announced policy regarding marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington must be pretty good, because Kevin Sabet, the former Office of National Drug Control Policy staffer who heads the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, hates it:

This is disappointing, but it is only the first chapter in the long story about marijuana legalization in the US. In many ways, this will quicken the realization among people that more marijuana is never good for any community, which is what happened after the Ogden memo [recommending prosecutorial restraint in cases involving people who comply with medical marijuana laws] was issued in 2009.

Here are some more-favorable reactions, in decreasing order of exuberance.
Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:

This is the most heartening news to come out of Washington in a long, long time. The federal government is not simply standing aside and allowing the will of the people to prevail in these two states. The attorney general and the Obama administration are exhibiting inspired leadership. The message to the people of the other 48 states, to all who value personal freedom and responsible regulation is clear: seize the day.

Anthony Johnson, executive director of Portland-based New Approach Oregon, which is trying to get a legalization measure on that state's ballot:

I'm very excited about it. If it holds true, it's a historic step for the federal government and the cannabis law reform movement.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance:

Today's announcement demonstrates the sort of political vision and foresight from the White House we’ve been seeking for a long time. I must admit, I was expecting a yellow light from the White House. But this light looks a lot more green-ish than I had hoped. The White House is basically saying to Washington and Colorado: Proceed with caution.

Ezekiel Edwards, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Criminal Law Reform Project:

We support the attorney general's decision not to interfere with individuals and entities that are complying with state marijuana laws, thereby respecting states' voter-approved and common-sense approaches to regulating marijuana. As the DOJ guidance makes clear, if states and local governments that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana create strong and effective regulatory systems, the federal government will defer to them to enforce those systems. It is incumbent on the DOJ to monitor implementation of its non-interference policy to ensure that U.S. attorneys' decisions are aligned with DOJ objectives, including that prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation dispositive in determining whether there is federal enforcement interest.

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority:

It's nice to hear that the Obama administration doesn't at this point intend to file a lawsuit to overturn the will of the voters in states that have opted to modernize their marijuana policies, but it remains to be seen how individual U.S. attorneys will interpret the new guidance and whether they will continue their efforts to close down marijuana businesses that are operating in accordance with state law.
It's significant that U.S. attorneys will no longer be able to use the size or profitability of a legal marijuana business to determine whether or not it should be a target for prosecution, but the guidelines seem to leave some leeway for the feds to continue making it hard for state-legal marijuana providers to do business.
The administration's statement that it doesn't think busting individual users should be a priority remains meaningless, as it has never been a federal focus to go after people just for using small amounts of marijuana. The real question is whether the president will call off his federal agencies that have been on the attack and finally let legal marijuana businesses operate without harassment, or if he wants the DEA and prosecutors to keep intervening as they have throughout his presidency and thus continue forcing users to buy marijuana on the illegal market where much of the profits go to violent drug cartels and gangs.
In all, today's announcement represents a step in a right direction and a recognition by the administration that the politics of marijuana are rapidly shifting in favor of those who support legalization. However, my optimism is tempered by the fact that despite the Justice Department's 2009 announcement that it shouldn't be a priority to bust medical marijuana providers operating in accordance with state law, this administration went on to close down more state-legal marijuana businesses in one term than the Bush administration did in two terms.

As often seems to be the case, Angell's view is closest to mine.

Obama's New Pot Rules Are a Bigger Deal Than You Think

Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

INSLEE: Praising the presidents courage for handling a vexing problem.

INSLEE: Praising the president's "courage" for handling "a vexing problem."

President Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder blew up the internet today when they announced that the federal government will allow two states, Colorado and Washington, to enact voter-approved laws that regulate growing and selling marijuana. That was stunning news on its own. Starting next year, it's now official: Adults will be walking into stores and buying bags of marijuana, unmolested.
But this is about more than Washington and Colorado: The White House is formally deferring to the states on drug policy, much like the Feds now recognize marriage equality. In doing so, Obama is acknowledging that the US drug war is not mandatory, while he also sets a bold precedent of standing back when states present superior alternatives, such as more states legalizing pot, states decriminalizing hard drugs, cities opening safe-injection sites, and other countries breaking away from the formerly Drug Free America.
On the phone with governors from Colorado and Washington, AG Holder explained the US Justice Department would not sue Washington and Colorado for preempting the federal Controlled Substances Act, provided that the states do two things: (1) strictly enforce their own laws that regulate the pot market and (2) abide by eight federal conditions. The weightiest of those conditions are: preventing pot from leaking outside state borders, not allowing unregulated cannabis commerce, and banning access for minors. But what wasn't in those conditions stands out radically. Holder didn't tell states to prevent massive regulated pot farms, to ban wholesale marijuana distribution, or to prohibit storefronts selling marijuana just like bottles of wine. Those are also major violations of federal law—technically—but the Feds are, stunningly, groovy with them if the farms, distribution, and sales are done in compliance with state laws.
After the talk with Holder, Washington State Governor Jay inslee explained his understanding of the deal in a press conference: "If you are following Washington State law and following these eight rules, and our state follows them as well, we are going to have a successful program here—and successful business," he said.
This was a deliberate—and deeply radical—decision about who is in charge of most drug enforcement. "The thrust is that they will allow the state of Washington to be the principal law-enforcement agent in this regard," Inslee said. That is, for the first time, the president and head of the US Department of Justice have chosen to hand over the reins on major, controversial drug-control policy to the states. (The Feds have also stayed largely out of medical marijuana, but that is a much smaller market and a less controversial issue.)
Likewise, Deputy Attorney General James Cole also emphasized state control today in a memo to federal prosecutors about how to handle prosecutions in "jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana in some form." While the memo says prosecutors can bust offenders at their discretion (a boilerplate caveat), Cole essentially instructs prosecutors to butt out if states have their own "strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems."
In other words, the Feds are surrendering power to states that come forward with a better idea—and show they can implement a tight regulatory framework—to experiment with a drug control strategy that will more effectively reduce violence and drug abuse. This decision is also an unprecedented admission that federal government is paralyzed in its drug war straitjacket, and they are ready to work in tandem with states that have more flexibility.
"If you step back, we're talking about ending the war on drugs, and the federal government has given a green light to the states to try different approaches," says Alison Holcomb, who drafted Initiative 502, which contained exactly that strict framework for marijuana that the Feds have tacitly endorsed. "That is much bigger than legalizing marijuana in Washington and Colorado." She says that courts, treatment centers, and communities can begin crafting new policy. "And we should not be shy about doing it."
For his part, Inslee acknowledged that drugs are "a vexing problem" and he praised the "courage" and "significant action from the attorney general and president to respect the wisdom of voters and recognize where we are in society today."
When Nevada and California tried to legalize marijuana several years ago, it was the White House drug czar braying as he led the charge to stop ballot measures. And internationally, the US has been breathing down the necks of other countries to stop them from legalizing marijuana. But Obama had no political or tactical benefit in challenging legalization this time around—if anything, he wants ineffective drug laws dismantled... but by someone else.
I wanted to get the perspective of Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a preeminent authority on drug strategy in the US and abroad. I called his cell phone as he was in the passanger seat of a car driving down a narrow, winding road in Jamaica between Kingston and Negril. He'd spent yesterday in conference with members of the past and curr

Obama Grants Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants Without Congress

Jessica Zuckerman

August 30, 2013 at 6:50 am

(37)

Congress hasn’t passed immigration legislation, but that hasn’t stopped President Obama from issuing directives that grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Last week, the Obama Administration issued the latest in a line of policy directives granting amnesty by default. This latest directive instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials not to enforce immigration laws in cases where an illegal alien is the primary provider for any minor child—regardless of the child’s immigration status—or the parent or guardian of a child who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
In a statement about the new directive, House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) declared:

President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws by directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to stop removing broad categories of unlawful immigrants.

In June of last year, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum telling U.S. immigration officials how they should “enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.” The move essentially served to implement major portions of the DREAM Act—which has been introduced and failed in Congress more than 30 times—by executive fiat.
Efforts to preserve and protect families are important considerations when it comes to immigration reform. Heritage has often argued that “strong families are priceless, providing an abundance of benefits to both adults and children and creating the bonds of strong societies.” Any such effort, however, should be not only compassionate but also fair and respectful of the rule of law. As we’ve said before:

A proper solution would uphold the principles of immigration reform and not open the door to a blanket amnesty. Finding an actual solution through the legislative process would give the law legitimacy and more permanency, and it might even result in a bipartisan agreement.… In our system of government, Congress is the legislative branch and is responsible for making the laws. Presidents are supposed to “faithfully execute” the laws to the best of their ability, not reshape them to suit their own policy goals.

Instead, fixing America’s broken immigration system requires a more thoughtful approach. Neither sweeping executive action nor a massive, do-it-all-at-once bill offers truly meaningful reform. In fact, any path that promises amnesty would only make matters worse.
There is a better way forward—a practical, fair, and responsible path to address the nation’s broken borders and immigration mess. If only Congress and the Administration would listen.
Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.
Quick Hits:

Surprise: An independent study shows that insurance premiums under Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, will be rather…unaffordable.
Learn how the Obama Administration redefined marriage yesterday for a variety of federal purposes.
Boston strong: Despite last year’s finish-line bombing, this year’s Boston Marathon is expanding to include more runners.
What do 41 percent of Americans polled say about possible air strikes in Syria?
Did employees at your favorite fast food joint participate in a strike on Thursday? Some workers are trying to publicize their demands.
President Obama keeps adding executive actions to his gun control wish list.
This Tennessee man thought he finally had a job, until the company decided Obamacare made it too expensive to hire anyone.
President Obama is going to meet with leaders of the Baltic states today. Here’s why the meeting is important.

Posted in Front Page, Protect America [slideshow_deploy]

Print This Post

Thursday, August 29, 2013

James Woods tweets ‘priceless’ photo of Obama preparing address on racial hatred

August 27, 2013 by Tom Tillison 91 Comments

Actor James Woods may never work another day in Hollywood at the rate he’s going. While relatively new to Twitter, Woods does not believe in keeping your powder dry when it comes to President Obama.
After helping bring national media attention to the brutal beating death of World War II vet Delbert Belton, Woods shares his idea of how Obama prepares for his monumental speech addressing racial hatred in the wake of that murder by posting a picture of the president with his arm around race hustler Al Sharpton, with both men smiling broadly.
James Woods ✔ @RealJamesWoods

President Obama prepares for his monumental speech addressing racial hatred in the wake of Delbert Belton murder... pic.twitter.com/uphrRHHxJ1

9:09 AM - 24 Aug 2013

Obama is expected to address race relations when he speaks Wednesday on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
Woods recently called Sharpton a “blatant bigot,” but that didn’t stop the White House from inviting Sharpton to a meeting this week on Obamacare — he sat right next to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

James Woods ✔ @RealJamesWoods

Please explain to me why a major network would allow a blatant bigot to be a news commentator? pic.twitter.com/rk8IJ7d2lP

9:28 AM - 22 Aug 2013

Right out of the gate, Woods turned to Twitter in July to respond to comments Obama made after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the death of Trayvon Martin.

James Woods ✔ @RealJamesWoods

The only reason people lock their car doors when Obama walks by is they are afraid he'll tax them to death...

And with that tweet, Woods won the Internet for the day:
James Woods ✔ @RealJamesWoods

The only reason people lock their car doors when Obama walks by is they are afraid he'll tax them to death...

Ian Hanchett @IanHanchett

@RealJamesWoods wins the Internet for today.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Report: Second Chemical Attack in Damascus Area

1334

As Israel increases security precautions, Syria attacks her own citizens with chemical weapons again. This past Wednesday, Arabic language media outlet Al Jazeera reported a second chemical attack within Syria, with Al Arabiya claiming that only 20 people were injured. Video footage uploaded on the Internet showed doctors frantically smearing white cream on the reddened skin of several screaming people, many of them young boys. “Assad’s military aircraft have hit populated areas with the internationally prohibited phosphorus bombs and napalm,” the Syrian opposition coalition said in a statement. American intelligence believes that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was behind this attack.

Israel began calling up limited numbers of reserve soldiers to prepare for possible Syrian retaliatory attacks should Western powers carry out threatened strikes on Syria. A second Iron Dome missile defense system was also deployed on Israel’s northern border.
In connection with these events, an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson commented that “the IDF is taking the necessary defense measures to safeguard the State of Israel.” IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai stated, “It is important to make clear that the developments around the events in Syria … are being led by the U.S. with a widening coalition, which includes other countries in the Middle East. As is required, the IDF is examining, following and watching the developments, hour by hour. The Home Front Command knows its job well and is prepared to give any required solution for the population, and therefore there is no reason to change our daily routine.”
Assessments in Jerusalem range from low to very low regarding the probability of Assad launching a missile attack on Israel in response to a U.S. strike. Israel has communicated the message that if it is attacked, it will bring down Assad’s regime.
By Rachel Avraham, staff writer for United With Israel

Iran army chief warns ‘Zionists will burn’ if US attacks Syria

Tehran, Damascus step up threats ahead of anticipated American strike on Assad regime; Jerusalem still thinks it unlikely Damascus would tangle with Jewish state

By Times of Israel staff August 28, 2013, 9:46 pm 1

An Iranian navy vessel launches a missile during a drill in the Sea of Oman in January 2012 (photo credit: AP/ISNA, Amir Kholousi)

Amid increasingly hostile threats from Syria and Iran that Israel will be attacked if the US carries out an anticipated punitive strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad for its chemical weapons use, Israel reportedly sent messages to Damascus via third parties Wednesday warning Assad that any attack will be met with a forceful IDF response.

Iran’s leaders also issued warnings Wednesday to the United States over military intervention against their Syrian ally.

Iran’s chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi was quoted by Israel’s Channel 2 Wednesday declaring that “if the US attacks, the Zionists will burn,” and an Iranian journalist said to be close to Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly warned that Israel would “face tens of thousands of missiles.”

Taleb Ibrahim, a Syrian analyst, warned on state television that an American strike would prompt a three-front attack on Israel — by Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. A second Syrian television commentator, meanwhile, was quoted saying that “the land [of Israel] will tremble.”

Hassan Firouzabadi, left, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2011. (Screenshot: Youtube)

On Tuesday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, and IDF Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz all publicly warned Assad not to tangle with Israel. Those public statements were reinforced by private messages, conveyed via third parties, Channel 2 reported Wednesday night. The US-led strike is not expected to be so extensive as to bring down Assad, whereas if Israel is hit,military sources have said in recent days, its response could well spell the demise of the Assad regime.

At the same time, Israel has been at pains to make clear that it has no desire to be drawn into the Syrian conflict, which has escalated internationally after Assad’s force used alleged chemical weapons to kill several hundred Syrian civilians in the suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday — crossing a “red line” set by US President Barack Obama to outlaw the employment of weapons of mass destruction.. The IDF has not raised its overall alert level, although some weekend leaves for soldiers in the north are reportedly likely to be cancelled. And the Israeli security cabinet was briefed Wednesday to the effect that the likelihood of Assad striking at Israel remained low.

Nonetheless, Israel on Wednesday began calling up about 1,000 reservists, and deploying anti-missile systems in the north. Iron Dome batteries also remain in Eilat and close to Gaza, should rocket fire emanate from the Sinai or the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Haifa’s Mayor Yona Yahav was briefed Wednesday by Home Front Command authorities and told to ensure that bomb shelters in the city were in good order. Israel is expected to be given several hours’ advance notice of an American-led strike.

In comments Wednesday directed at the US, Khamenei said in a meeting with members of the new Iranian cabinet in Tehran that “The US threats and possible intervention in Syria are a disaster for the region. And if such an act is done, certainly, the Americans will sustain damage like when they interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan.” He cautioned the US and its allies that their military intervention in Syria would yield no result but blazing fire and an increase in nations’ hatred of them, the Fars news agency reported.

“Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences,” Khamenei said.

The speaker of the Iranian parliament , Ali Larjiani, said, “The result of such an unwise measure (a military attack on Syria) is regional anarchy which will entangle the naïve countries of the region.” Speaking in parliament, he said that if any war is waged against Syria, “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.”

PROMO: Control The Times of Israel's Kotel Cam and view the Western Wall LIVE! SEE THE KOTEL NOW >>The HelloBar - a little bar that gets noticed!Close

Open

Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Elul 22, 5773
10:24 pm IDT
Site updated 1 minute ago

Fair, fresh and fast

Moscow mayoral candidate did not praise Holocaust, Jewish staffers say

Corruption whistleblower Alexei Navalny is considered among the strongest challengers to incumbent Putin associate

By JTA August 28, 2013, 10:08 pm 0

Alexei Navalny speaks to supporters in downtown Moscow. (photo credit: AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev)

DERDENT, Russia — Jewish staffers for the campaign of Moscow mayoral candidate Alexei Navalny denied reports that he praised the Holocaust.

“To my knowledge, he never made the statement attributed to him,” Maxim Katz, deputy director of the Navalny campaign for the Sept. 8 election, told JTA on Tuesday.

Katz, 29, a Moscow politician who lived in Israel for nine years, was responding to reports that circulated earlier this month that Navalny had raised a toast to the Holocaust during a recent reception in the Russian capital.

The report appeared on the European Jewish Press news website on Monday.

Leonid Volkov, the 32-year-old CEO of Navalny’s campaign and also Jewish, said the reports were “false and part of a smear campaign designed by our rivals to damage Navalny’s image precisely among reform-minded liberals who constitute a natural base of support for us.”

Navalny, a center-right blogger and corruption whistleblower turned opposition leader, is considered to be among the strongest of five challengers to incumbent Sergei Sobyanin of the ruling United Russia Party, who is seen as a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yevgenia Albats, a writer for the New Times, wrote Tuesday on Facebook that Navalny never said the words attributed to him, adding it was “abominable and disgusting to even suggest this.”

Nazi-Style Propaganda from the Obama Administration

By Shoebat Foundation on August 28, 2013 in Blog, General

By Keith Davies
Watching the US media today – along with the Chief of propaganda John “Goebbels” Kerry, we are watching a classic case of Nazi-style aggression against another country without any concrete proof of the use of weapons of mass destruction by the accused party. “Undeniable evidence” has not been shown to us just as the Nazis trumped up lies against Poland to justify its invasion to start World War 2.
We have shown that there is strong evidence to suggest the Rebels fired these Chemical weapons and not Assad. No national or international agency or media source has been able to show who fired the weapons. Walid Shoebat, based on meticulous research, is the only source that has provided significant evidence to suggest that it was the rebels. Video of a rebel saying that he is using Sarin gas and a video of Chemical warheads being fired using a special artillery gun seems pretty convincing.

Did Goebbels write Obama’s propaganda playbook?

While Assad of Syria is no saint and is a purveyor of national and international terrorism, the opposition that is trying to overthrow him are religious fanatics backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The devil you know is better than one you also know to be worse.
Over the last ten years of occupation and wars in the Middle East by successive US governments, it seems we continue to make one blunder after another. We have contributed in a major way to setting the Middle East ablaze. Sadly, this potential blunder is more like a deliberate ego trip based on “red lines” or the actions of a fool who We the foolish People handed the keys to the White House and the command of the most powerful military in the world. I wonder, does Obama think he is about to play a video game on his X box?
Our intelligence services have proven to be very unreliable in the past, especially when it comes to proving ownership of chemical weapons. Remember the Second Gulf War? The Democrats when Bush was president never let us forget those facts until they themselves happen to be guilty of the behavior they accuse their opposition of in the past. As Rush Limbaugh said recently, “We have seen this movie before.”
Biden, another Nazi-style propagandist, threatened to impeach Bush if he used force before Congressional approval. Now, based on his own words, he should threaten to impeach his boss and resign as vice president:
Syria has offered to allow more UN inspections. Yet, the president says “it is too late.” I can just imagine if George Bush was in power. The once Senator Obama would be the first to condemn Bush for his haste. Do you remember the criticism on the surge in Iraq?
Based on our vast experience and knowledge – both of the Middle East and the exposition of the Obama administration – it is beyond obvious that Obama wishes to empower the Muslim Brotherhood. It is also obvious that major military pressure will be put on Israel if Obama uses military strikes against Syria. Iran and Syria have threatened to attack Israel if the USA attacks. We know this is a very valid threat as Hezbollah has thousands of high-grade rockets and missiles that can possibly reach Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In 2006 – in the last major war with Israel – Hezbollah fired hundreds if not thousands of rockets against cities in Northern Israel.
Obama has used the tactics to go to war just like Hitler used to take over Europe; the same tactics were used to take over Libya. The media has been used to portray a picture of Assad and the facts do not support any military action.
The USA has ignored the plight of Sudanese Christians murdered in the millions. The USA continues to ignore the persecution of over a hundred thousand murdered Christians a year. The USA has ignored the holocaust in Rwanda. Now we must involve ourselves in a civil war where the winner – whoever wins – will remain an arch enemy of the United States. Ninety percent of the American people disagree with any military action against Syria but the political class from both sides seems to think it is a good move. It seems the politicians don’t care about We The People and that is the real problem.

Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad)

By Shoebat Foundation on August 27, 2013 in Blog, General

By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
Recent news of a chemical weapons attack in Syria smacks of desperation. The question comes down to who is most desperate right now, the Assad regime or the Muslim Brotherhood rebels? Consider that since June, Assad’s forces have been winning. According to a CBS News report from last month, victories for the rebels had become “increasingly rare” and that the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition fighters were sustaining “some of their heaviest losses” near Damascus.

Saudi Chemicals in hands of Syrian Rebels

The New York Times echoed this sentiment, even saying that before gaining the upper hand, concerns were that Assad would use chemical weapons; he did not.
In fact, even before Assad’s forces gained the momentum, a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad’s regime did. This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}

Today, while the rebels are more desperate than they were at the time of that article, evidence of rebels using chemical weapons is available; evidence Assad’s regime has used them is not.
Waterman wrote…

Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.

That doesn’t square with a video uploaded on August 23, 2013, in which Free Syrian operatives threatened to launch chemical weapons:
A day later, on August 24th, a video was uploaded and featured on facebook that purports to show Syrian rebels loading what very well may be a rocket armed with some sort of chemical agent. The tip of the rocket is armed with a light blue tank or canister that very well contains a nerve agent. At the end of this video, two separate launches of these rockets can be seen:
This video from a Syrian TV news report claims to show chemicals (some of labels on these chemicals are in English) and weapons seized by the Syrian government in the rebel stronghold of Jobar. Note at the :10 mark a label that reads:

“Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalies”

In this video, two Syrian rebels (Muslim Brotherhood gang) can be heard coordinating an attack on a nearby building. As smoke billows a short distance from the building, a rebel on the ground can be heard directing someone – presumably at the source of the launch – to change his direction. At that point, the rebel from the launch point can be heard talking about using sarin gas next:
In this video of a Russia Today news report originally broadcast on or before June 16, 2013, testimony from a United Nations panel is reported to demonstrate that rebel groups – not the Assad regime – was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in general, Sarin gas in particular, which backs up the claims in the previous video. Those who attempt to discredit the report below because it is from Russia Today should have difficulty doing so when factoring in rebels above talking about using sarin gas:
It’s significant to consider that the rebels were reportedly using chemical weapons at a time when Assad was more desperate than he is now. Again, why would Assad use chemical weapons now and not then? Who is more desperate at this point in the conflict?
The answer is, the Muslim Brotherhood rebels, who have no problem killing themselves (or their own) if the cause of Islam is moved forward.
Even CNN International, which has typically been quick to report favorably for the Muslim Brotherhood rebels, is hedging its bets lately, when it comes to who is responsible for the attack. Here is a video report from Frederik Pleitgen in which he leaves the possibility open that the rebels may have perpetrated or staged the attack:
Back in March, we chronicled evidence of chemical weapons being used by the Syrian rebels. Unfortunately, since google terminated Theodore’s YouTube account, most of the videos in that post have been deleted and have been more than a little difficult to find.
Running concurrent with the tide that turned in Assad’s favor a few months ago was another defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood – in Egypt. That defeat has been taking place ever since Mohammed Mursi was ousted on July 3rd. So why would Assad use chemical weapons now and not months ago, when his situation was much more precarious?
As the Associated Press was reporting that the U.S. is moving ships closer to Syria in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack, Reuters reported that Assad’s army found chemical weapons in tunnels that had been used by the rebels, according to Syrian state television.
Oxford University historian Mark Almond granted Russia Today an interview and explained both why western nations are so willing to blame Assad and why rebels would have a motive to murder their own people. In response to a question about why the U.S., the U.K., and France appear so eager to blame Assad, Almond said:

“Western governments… want to say ‘Gotcha’. They have been demanding the fall of Assad for more than two-and-a-half years now and it has become increasingly frustrating that his regime has shown much more resilience than they had expected, despite the resources that they and the Gulf Kingdoms have thrown into the war on the other side.
It is also like a distraction from the embarrassment of Egypt, where we see the European and the US governments basically using weasel words to avoid any kind of condemnation of a massacre in the streets of Cairo. So there are both the specifics of Syria and the context of what is going on elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Egypt.”

Almond gives a very interesting answer to the question about why the rebels would intentionally gas their own people:

“We do have some very radical groups who would no doubt say, as they have when they have been challenged about using suicide bombers, killing innocent people, that God will recognize his own when the dead die, that he will save for heaven the justified victims and just send to hell the wicked supporters of Assad. So it is not impossible that somebody has staged this.

Consider that a man many of the Syrian rebels show the utmost of reverence for is the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. When writing about a Muslim tactic known as Muruna, Qaradawi expressed when it is acceptable for Muslims to kill fellow Muslims:

“…killing Muslims whom the unbelievers use as shields… leaving these unbelievers is a danger to the Muslims, so it is permissible to kill these unbelievers even if Muslims are killed with them in the process.” – The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 56

Of course, if the rebels are desperate enough, Muruna could sanction the murder of their own people if it meant bearing false witness and a blood libel that would engage external forces that want Assad removed. As things stand today, the rebels are more desperate than is the Assad regime.
Specific examples include the staged death of twelve year-old Muhammad Al-Dura by Palestinians. Whether the child was used as a prop in a Palestinian blood-libel or was actually killed, he was clearly put in danger by Palestinians who shot at him as the news cameras rolled for a false report that aired on France 2. They wanted to blame the Israelis.
Earlier this month in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood supporters were caught behaving as victims of oppression at the hands of the military. They might have gotten away with it if nothing but still shots were taken. Unfortunately for these miscreants, video was recorded that revealed a staged, mass display of despicable behavior.
Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood rebels would never get away with launching chemical weapons and taking credit for it. They’d have to do so while blaming Assad. It’s straight out of the Nazi playbook and a violation of two major commandments – Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not bear false witness. However, the Muslim Brotherhood, as usual, provides more evil spin. It bears false witness while committing murder in order to push an agenda.
Lying, bearing false witness, blood libel, and murder.
Yeah, that smells like the Brotherhood.

US said past point of no return on strike, but timing may snarl plans

Several issues with launching attack in next few days, but waiting too long will open another can of worms, experts say

By AP and Times of Israel staff August 28, 2013, 9:23 pm 1

US Navy aircraft flying in formation earlier this month. (photo credit: Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ramon G. Go/US Navy, Department of Defense)

Preparations for a highly anticipated strike on Syria could lead to an awkward decision on timing for army planners.

A senior administration official told NBC News Wednesday that “we’re past the point of no return” and airstrikes should be expected soon.

But there are few good options for when to attack.

Wednesday, for example, would make for an uncomfortable juxtaposition of themes: On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Obama pays tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. on the 50th anniversary of the nonviolent leader’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Thursday is also problematic. That’s when British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to convene an emergency meeting of Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to vote on a motion clearing the way for Britain to respond to the alleged chemical weapons attack.

Days later, on Tuesday, Obama embarks on an overseas trip that will take him away from the White House for most of the week.

Would Obama really want to be running a military operation from Sweden? Or from Russia, which vigorously opposes action against Syria?

Compounding the pressure, some lawmakers and allies are urging Obama to proceed slowly and seek UN Security Council approval, while others are imploring the president to act quickly and decisively. After all, Obama’s response earlier this year after the US first concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used chemical weapons was criticized as too little, too late.

“The longer you wait, the less meaningful it becomes,” said Barry Pavel, a former top national security official in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.

Lawmakers from both political parties have called on Obama to consult Congress before taking action — a step the White House says is now underway. Obama also is seeking buy-in from Western allies such as Britain and France, and from regional organizations like the 22-member Arab League, which has signaled its interest in justice for victims of the alleged chemical weapons attacks and blamed the Syrian regime.

But those consultations, too, limit the haste with which the U.S. can act without going it alone.

Britain added another wrinkle to the deliberations Wednesday by saying it would seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing steps to protect Syrian civilians, although Britain’s foreign secretary said the world has a responsibility to act even if the resolution fails; Russia is all but certain to veto it.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged against immediate military action, saying UN inspectors need four more days to complete their work before evidence can be analyzed and then presented to the Security Council.

Although Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the US military is in position to strike as soon as Obama gives the order, the administration has yet to release a promised intelligence report formally linking Assad to the attack. That report would provide a key rationale and underpinning for the administration’s assertion that a game-changing response was warranted.

The report could be released as early as Wednesday, the same day as Obama’s speech marking the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington.

A successful vote Thursday in Britain’s Parliament would mark the start of short window that national security experts say could be a less awkward time for Obama to act. But a senior administration official said once Obama decides on what action to take, he won’t delay the decision because of outside factors or competing events.

Obama, on Tuesday, will travel to Stockholm for his first visit as president to Sweden. The Northern European nation has claimed a position of neutrality in international conflicts for about 200 years.

Two days later, he heads to St. Petersburg, Russia, for the Group of 20 economic summit with leading foreign counterparts. A major conference intended to focus on wonky issues like tax evasion and monetary policy could easily be subsumed by a military incursion in a Mideast hot spot embroiling the U.S. and potentially other G-20 nations.

What’s more, Russia, the host of the summit, is staunchly backing Assad and would be among the most vocal opponents of a military strike in Syria. An American-led attack on Assad’s forces while world leaders meet in Russia would be a major embarrassment for the Kremlin, and would deliver yet another blow to shaky relations between Russia and the US, already at a low point since the recent US decision to cancel a bilateral meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The president has to be prepared for a lot of tension and a high degree of awkwardness,” said Nikolas Gvosdev, a national security professor at the US Naval War College.

Despite the messy optics, Obama’s foreign travel next week will not be a factor in his decision about when to act, said the administration official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly and requested anonymity. The main factor in when an action starts will be how long it takes to get it off the ground once Obama makes the call. An increase in foreign assistance, for example, would take a while to ramp up, while a military action could be ordered right away.

There’s precedent for Obama to take military action while outside the US It was in Brazil in 2011 when Obama, on a five-day Latin America swing, authorized limited military action against Libya to counter Moammar Gadhafi’s assault on his own people.

US officials say a response most likely would involve sea-launched cruise missile attacks on Syrian military targets. Logistical and military considerations could also play a role in determining when the U.S. and others take action. Military experts and US officials said strikes probably would come during the night, a strategy that could help minimize civilian casualties.

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say

Posted By Noah Shachtman Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - 8:54 PM Share

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense 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. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.
But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"
Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."
American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.
However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.
There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately -- or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the work of that team "redundant ... because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale."
But within the intelligence community, at least, "there's an interest in letting the U.N. piece run its course," the official said. "It puts the period on the end of the sentence."
When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn't even indentify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime's chemical weapon of choice.
Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. "Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn't be so much rocket left," the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.
In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria's horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story -- one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.
The official White House line is that the president is still considering his options for Syria. But all of Washington is talking about a punitive strike on the Assad government in terms of when, not if. Even some congressional doves have said they're now at least open to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Images of dead children, neatly stacked in rows, have a way of changing minds.
"It's horrible, it's stupid," the intelligence official said about the East Ghouta attack by the Syrian military. "Whatever happens in the next few days -- they get what they deserve."