Sunday, September 8, 2013


With the latest numbers out this week from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that over 90 million people are out of the work force, I would say that the White House is well on its way to fulfilling its Cloward and Piven dream.

One of the main objectives to lead us down the path to a “socialist utopia” is to collapse the welfare system, cause a crisis and then have the government come in and change us into a communist republic.  Yes, I said it.

Over the past five years, Barak Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” and we have the statistics.  Here are a few of his accomplishments:

1.  As of this week, there are a record number of Americans out of the work force.
2.  There are a record number of Americans on food stamps.
3.  There are a record number of Americans on disability.
4.  There are a record number of Americans working part-time.
5.  The unemployment rate for black youth in July was more than 46%.
6.  Obama has succeeded in hurting the people who voted and supported him the most.  Women, minorities and the young.

With the dismal statistics this week it is transparently obvious that we are headed in the wrong direction.  There is no recovery and no matter how they want to spin it, there isn’t one on the way.  

Not with Obamacare and a pending war with Syria on the horizon.

Let’s go back to August of 2008.  Back then, before the collapse of the financial markets and the beginning of the Great Recession, the participation rate for the work force was 66.1%.  Last month the rate dropped to 63.2%.  That is almost 3 points lower than it was five years ago.  If the participation had stayed the same over the past five years the unemployment rate would not be the number that was released last week of 7.3%.  With a working age population that would have grown by about 10 million the real unemployment rate would be at least 9.7% or possibly even higher.

This administration can spin it all they want.  They make excuses for the lower participation rate by saying that it is due to “Baby Boomers” retiring and women not as active in the work force as they once were.  I say that is all smoke and mirrors.  

With the entitlements that are being offered, more and more people are opting out of trying to find a job.  With jobs being scarce and only part time work being offered, it is very enticing to sign up for an EBT card, go on disability and take full advantage of what the government is handing out. In some places, like Hawaii, you can receive as much as $60,590 a year from government benefits!

This kind of behavior is what Obama and liberals are depending on. Their goal is government dependency. They want as many people as possible to be on the government dole so that eventually the system collapses under its own weight.  We are heading in that direction and now with Obamacare, the train is barreling out of control.

Why do we not have more than just a few lonely voices in Washington calling this administration out on all of this?  Are they just so afraid of standing up to Obama that they would rather see our country go down the drain?  Many in Congress have constituents who are screaming for help and getting silence or recorded voicemail messages as an answer.  

They need to hear us.  WE NEED JOBS.  WE NEED TO DEFUND OBAMACARE.  WE NEED TO SECURE THE BORDER and WE NEED TO STAY OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICTS.  

Pretty simple.  

What we really need is a leader with America’s interests at heart.

In fact, U.S. support for interventionism abroad in places like Kosovo, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq all garnered more backing from Americans than the proposed military strikes against Syria currently being debated in Washington and across the country. But the question is: Are the People’s Representatives listening?
 photo Syria_zps1b9da269.png
Americans' support for the United States' taking military action against the Syrian government for its suspected use of chemical weapons is on track to be among the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years. Thirty-six percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. The majority -- 51% -- oppose such action, while 13% are unsure.
Public opinion, of course, isn't the only reason not to launch military air strikes against the Assad regime (and there are some valid arguments for why we should). But here are a few of my concerns: First, what does the United States hope to accomplish in Syria? Obviously Washington wants to bring some semblance of stability to the region -- and prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again on his own people. Fair enough. However, as Guy previously noted, a bombing campaign against Assad’s government would undoubtedly help the Syrian rebels.

Question: Is this a wise decision given some of the rebel leaders’ reputation for lawlessness and barbarism? There are no doubt elements of the (crumbling?) opposition that are pro-western -- but some are clearly sworn enemies of the United States. So are we really comfortable taking sides? On the other hand, if the end-game is regime change -- as Secretary Kerry seems to suggest -- how on earth can we accomplish this without committing endless supplies of resources to the region and eventually putting boots-on-the-ground? Isn’t the phenomenon known as “mission creep” inevitable if that’s the stated goal? Air strikes aren’t going to cut it, after all. And by the way, what if the new regime that comes to power after Assad’s downfall is even more lawless and evil than the previous government?

Recent history shows us that this does happen. What do we do then?

Second, how are we going to pay for all of this? I realize I sound like a broken record but Mark Steyn is correct when he notes dryly that the United States of America is the “Brokest Nation in History.” So how will we finance yet another war when we’re already spending one trillion more dollars every year than we take in? We can’t keep this up indefinitely.

And finally, as noted above, the public stands firmly against intervention. Yes, the United States’ reputation and credibility is on the line (thanks in part to the president’s “red-line” proclamation) but the Commander-in-Chief and members of Congress work for us, remember? Shouldn’t the American people’s opinions at least count for something?

There are no easy answers here. But, at the very least, there are things to consider and weigh before we march headlong into a bombing campaign against Syria. And while this might not be war in the “classic” sense, it’s war nonetheless. And America would do well to tread carefully.

Obama administration still hasn't proved that Assad was responsible for the gas attack

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


There is, therefore, absolutely no reason for the U.S. to attack Syria. Doing so will only benefit al-Qaeda. "Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S.," by Mark Hosenball for Reuters, September 7:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus. 
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.
It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.
After wrongly claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. intelligence community, along with the Obama administration, are trying to build as solid a case as they can about what it says was a sarin nerve gas attack that killed over 1,400 people.
The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack. Russia says Washington has not provided convincing proof that Assad's troops carried out the attack and called it a "provocation" by rebel forces hoping to encourage a military response by the United States.
Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.
But penetrating the secretive Syrian government is tough, especially as it fights a chaotic civil war for its survival.
"Decision-making at high levels within foreign governments is always a difficult intelligence target. Typically small numbers of people are involved, operational security is high, and penetration - through either human or technical means - is hard," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA expert on the Middle East.
One possible link between the gas attack and Assad's inner circle is the Syrian government body that is responsible for producing chemical weapons, U.S. and allied security sources say.
Personnel associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Council (SSRC), which has direct ties to Assad's entourage, were likely involved in preparing munitions in the days before the attack, they say.
A declassified French intelligence report describes a unit of the SSRC, known by the code name "Branch 450", which it says is in charge of filling rockets or shells with chemical munitions in general.
U.S. and European security sources say this unit was likely involved in mixing chemicals for the August 21 attack and also may have played a more extensive role in preparing for it and carrying it out.
"BEST EVIDENCE"
Bruce Riedel, a former senior U.S. intelligence expert on the region and sometime advisor to the Obama White House, said that intelligence about the SSRC's alleged role is the most telling proof the United States has at hand.
"The best evidence linking the regime to the attack at a high level is the involvement of SSRC, the science center that created the (chemical weapons) program and manages it. SSRC works for the President's office and reports to him," Riedel said.
U.S. officials say Amr Armanazi, a Syrian official identified as SSRC director in a State Department sanctions order a year ago, was not directly involved.
Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.
The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta.
But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.
An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were "witting and directed" the gas attack.
But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said....

Never forget...

As Obama tries to sell 'We the People' on war with Syria 
remember he is supporting those who did this to us.



Op-ed: 
Conniving deception and a whole lot more 
By: Diane Sori

Having almost NO international support, on Tuesday Barack HUSSEIN Obama will go on national television to grovel and beg the American people to support his having us go to war against a country we’re NOT at war with and who is NOT at war with us.

Obama’s been saber-rattling over the past few weeks NOT because he has the guts to follow through with his ‘targeted strikes’ bloviations, but because he had to stand strong against Vladimir Putin..or should I say he tried to stand strong because Putin has NOT only rendered Obama politically impotent in regards to Syria, but has also made him the laughing stock of the world. Making Obama a laughing stock so much so that he’s now sending out hints that he may abandon his oh so wanted Syrian strike completely if he can find other avenues to explore…to explore to take the heat of him as the game Putin is playing of ‘put up or shut-up’ will have Obama scurrying away like a rat deserting a sinking ship.

To take the heat off him and to try and take ‘We the People's' eyes off Benghazi.

‘Other avenues to explore’…Obama’s saying that because it seems Congress will call his bluff…as in he asked for authorization to go to war but Congress appears NOT to be giving it to him. And while the Democratic controlled Senate might approve authorization in its usual strictly partisan vote, authorization will most assuredly die in House as few Democratic or Republican representatives have voiced support for getting involved in Syria even with what Obama claims will be a ‘limited strike’.

So now Obama either has to honor the final decision of Congress as he should, and stop his saber-rattling or he has to use his power as president and send us to war unilaterally with NO support either at home or from most of our allies.

And we all know he is narcissistic enough to do just that.

“I’m not itching for military action…and if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing, then I’m going to be open to them,” Obama said at a hastily arranged press conference while at the G20 Summit.

And isn’t it odd that suddenly now when Putin pushes him into a corner…publicly chastises him for wanting to start World War III…actually making him appear as a buffoon…does Obama claim there are other options.

Now saying, “My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real…I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, you know, delivering chemical weapons against children, is not something we do,” Obama’s words are NOT quite what they appear to be at first glance.

Notice the words…”it’s NOT something we do”…NO…we the United States of America do NOT gas innocent people, but brutal and barbaric muslim rebels…rebels supported and backed by al-Qaeda…do…and this is the side Barack HUSSEIN Obama has brought our country to.

So all Obama’s talk of military action…talk of a ‘supposed’ moral responsibility to call to task al-Assad for the atrocities he’s ‘supposedly’ committed has been diluted talk of how America’s reputation would suffer if Obama did NOT act. And as it stands right now most world leaders just roll their eyes when Obama talks of ‘moral responsibility’ for Obama has been bloviating about gas attacks for months and has done NOTHING of any substance to corral in either side in order to help diffuse the death toll Syria’s civil war is racking up….a death toll the vast majority of which is NOT from gas attacks but from rebel initiated attacks against al-Assad’s government forces.

And with 70% of the Syrian people supporting the secular government of al-Assad (according to a NATO study)…more than who support Obama here at home…one can clearly see who the ‘badder’ of the ‘bad’ guys is. The Syrian people are tired of the lingering war against the foreign backed opposition …opposition whose loyalty is to al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, with their de-facto ties to Obama. The Syrian people know Barack HUSSEIN Obama is NOT on their side as his support of the rebels…the ‘terrorists’ as al-Assad calls them…is support for an islamic state where civil liberties and individual rights…as minimal as they are…will be replaced by the repressive subjugating rule of sharia law.

So is Obama’s now ‘miraculous’ change of heart to ‘explore other options’ more about him ‘saving face’ than it is about trying to diffuse the Syrian situation and help secure Middle East peace…of course it is for this man lost 'face'...lost credibility...when he left four Americans behind to be slaughtered as he jetting off to yet another fundraiser

And if Obama had NOT drawn the ‘red line’ that he now claims he did NOT draw (which he indeed did)…if he did NOT throw the gauntlet down so to speak…the question would still remain as to why does he really want to go into Syria for he knows damn well that if and when he gives the ‘go order’ to start the bombing then so starts a face off with Russia and Iran…a face off that would lay the groundwork for World War III…with the effect on Israel being NOTHING short of catastrophic.

So Tuesday will tell if Obama is truly the ultimate salesman those who orbit around him believe him to be…or Tuesday will show him to be the most inept, unqualified, miserable excuse of a president we patriots know him to be…and Russia and Iran will be watching to see if America is going to war on the side of those out to kill us all.