Saturday, August 31, 2013


The solitary sign in the middle of the throngs who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial Wednesday raised the salient issue that went largely unmentioned by the speakers at the podium: jobs.

In the photograph that ran across the front page of the Washington Post Thursday morning, a black woman held up a large placard that said "We Still Have A Dream: Jobs, Peace, Freedom."

That sign spoke volumes about that one issue that still plagues the African-American community whose jobless rates are off the charts. It's especially heart wrenching that a job came first on the list, above peace and freedom.

That was the unspoken and unfulfilled agenda at the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington where the Rev. Martin Luther King delivered his moving clarion call for racial justice.

The long line of Democrats, including President Obama, refused to acknowledge their party's biggest failure and its most embarrassing, self-inflicted wound -- the refusal to enact pro-growth, pro-job policies to open new economic opportunities for everyone.

Obama's address dealt for the most part with our country's remaining racial issues, but gave little or no serious attention to the weak economy that has hurt black people more than any other group.
Several days before the 50th anniversary observance, the Pew Research Center put out an economic report card on black advancement that said the black unemployment rate remains as bad as ever.

"Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington [which, it will be recalled, was a march for "Jobs and Freedom"], but one thing hasn't: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites..." If anything, it's gotten worse.

A recent report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute says that in 1963 the unemployment rate for for whites was 5 percent and 10.9 percent for blacks. Now it is nearly 13 percent for all blacks nationally, and 41.6 percent for young blacks 17 and older.

The poverty rate among blacks remains high and falling much more slowly than it did in the 1960s. It declined from 55.1 percent to 32.2 percent between 1959 and 1969, but in more recent years has stalled or, in many areas, grown worse. Nearly 30 percent of black households were below the poverty income line -- three times the rate for whites.

In his address on Wednesday, Obama wasn't willing to face the grim reality that his 1930s-style economic policies were hurting his own people.

Instead, as he has before, he portrayed the economic circumstances facing blacks as one of fairness, insinuating that maybe there was some discrimination in there, too. It isn't his policies that are wrong but "our economic system" that is to blame for the lack of jobs, he suggested.

"The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few," he said.
"It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran. To win that battle, to answer that call, this remains our great unfinished business."

Yet there's nothing wrong with an economic system that is open to everyone with ambition and dreams and God-given abilities. But Obama came into office believing he would end the recession and drive down unemployment by spending trillions of tax dollars on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and more government programs.

Clearly, with the national unemployment rate still skirting 8 percent, and with 17 states posting unemployment rates between 7.6 percent and 9.5 percent, his ideas have not worked.

President Reagan took a different approach. He believed our economic system was not to blame for the recession he inherited, it was the government's policies that needed changing. As did President Kennedy in the 1960s, he cut income taxes across the board, including the maximum tax rate on job creators.

In a recent Washington Times op-ed column, free market economist Richard Rahn, who was chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at the time, relates what happened:

"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent. Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama."

What Obama is selling in his speeches to voters, as he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial this week, is the politics of victimization. The answer to the jobs crisis isn't about giving the economy new tax incentives to invest and expand business and start new enterprises, he says. Rather, the answer is government and more of it.

Immediately after being sworn into office, Reagan flatly declared that "government is the problem" and that freeing private enterprise from suffocating taxation and regulation were the answers.

To those who said his tax cuts would help only the rich, Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats," and Reagan believed that, too. A sign of the times during the 1980s was the emergence of an inspiring magazine called "Black Enterprise" that heralded the success of countless black entrepreneurs.

Obama's focus on the Mall wasn't on how to stimulate new business startups and job creation. It was on what he said was King's unfulfilled dream, "challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails."

But that did not address the most deeply-held concerns of another young black woman out in the crowd who, the Post reported, held a homemade sign that read, "The Dream Without Work is Dead."

"Reagan thought like an entrepreneur, and thus intuitively understood that economic growth creates opportunities for everyone," Rahn says.

What a shame that Obama didn't speak to the dreams of those on the mall who held their "jobs" signs up, hoping for a chance to climb the economic ladder of opportunity.

What a tragedy that his policies will only produce more economic stagnation, long-term unemployment and lives of quiet desperation.

Newsmax: Poll: Nearly 80 of Americans Say Congress Needs to OK an Attack


Image: Poll: Nearly 80 of Americans Say Congress Needs to OK an Attack
Demonstrators on Aug. 29 protest outside the 
White House against a possible U.S. strike on Syria. 
 
By Lisa Barron

The findings of the two-day poll show that public opinion echoes the sentiment on Capitol Hill, where 140 legislators, including 21 Democrats, have signed a letter saying Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress.

The NBC survey also found that 50 percent of Americans oppose the United States taking military action, compared with 42 percent who support a military response.

In addition, only 21 percent of respondents think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States, while 33 percent disagree and 45 percent said they don't know enough to have an opinion.

And just 27 percent say that U.S. military action will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, compared to 41 percent who say it won't.

At the same time, the public overwhelmingly disapproves of Obama's handling of the situation in Syria, according to the NBC poll, which found that only 35 percent approve of the president's response.

The NBC survey also showed that Obama's overall job-approval rating has dropped another point since last month to 44 percent, which is tied for his lowest mark in past NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys.

The president fared even worse on foreign policy, with just 41 percent of respondents approving of his performance on the issue.

The NBC poll of 700 adults was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

The Truth Behind The Exploding Trend Of Black Mob Violence

by / Personal Liberty Digest

The Truth Behind The Exploding Trend Of Black Mob Violence
SPECIAL
Christopher Lane was killed on Aug. 16.
The mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the state. It has a narrative that it must reinforce on behalf of the state. All information contrary to that narrative is discarded and/or suppressed. Those who stray from the official line are harshly dealt with. (See Amber Lyon, Sharyl Attkisson, Glenn Greenwald and Helen Thomas.)

Last week, as we learned of the assassination of Chris Lane by a trio of amoral predatory racist gangster wannabes looking for street cred, a fact was curiously missing from mainstream media accounts: the race of the thug racist assassins and the victim. From the big networks we learned only the suspects came from the “seedier” side of town and that to satisfy their boredom they shot a man who happened to pass by at the wrong time. The shooters were not black and the victim was not white; he was a college baseball player from Australia.

The story that three black gangster-wannabes gunned down a white man for sport — choosing the victim because he was white and they believed “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM” — was not the official story. Nor did the MSM tell us that the trio was also threatening a classmate who they planned to ambush and murder the same day.

Contrast that with the treatment of George Zimmerman, who was crucified by a media that cast Zimmerman as white (he’s Hispanic) and that selectively edited a 911 call to portray him as a racist who hunted down and killed a helpless and unarmed teenager out for Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.

The media ignored Trayvon Martin’s criminal past and the fact that Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail — which is what Martin was actually carrying — are two ingredients for “Lean” or “Purple Drank,” a recreational drug popular in hip-hop culture.

Photos the MSM used depicting Martin inevitably were photos from Martin’s early teenage years — when he still had a youthful, cherubic appearance rather than the menacing, gold-toothed, gun-wielding glare that peered from behind raised middle fingers in his Facebook posts at the time of his death. Photos of Zimmerman showed a threatening, plumpish face with a five o’clock shadow of beard growth: again, a dated photo. It was classic bait and switch or doublethink.

The United States is suffering from a moral rot that has become endemic. This is by design. The moral rot is aided and abetted by the MSM, which not only encourages debasement but covers it up with doublethink and obfuscates its results.

Western governments, led by psychopathic Malthusiasts bent on population control and despotism, are working overtime to create a culture of death and depravity. Their efforts are advanced by a dumbed-down noneducation system, Hollywood’s death and consequentless-sex culture, secular humanism, collectivism and altruism — all of which lead to group consciousness and group response to authority. This leads to the acceptance of sexual perversion, destruction of the family, mass medication and inoculation, acceptance of government as democracy and the politics of envy, deceit, economic class warfare and immorality. Welfare, the entitlement mentality, unparented children left to raise themselves like animals pushed from the nest too soon and the abortion culture have dehumanized many of our youths. These are mental gateways leading teens to kill just to watch a person die.

Democracy is an organized system of political, moral and social control. It is the evolution and fulfillment of all systems gone before it. It perfects the New World Order for the ruling international elite. It is the master strategy of taking human liberty and individualism and transferring them to the group herd that clamors for authoritarianism.

Democracy is not freedom. It is not government by the people and for the people. It is the perfect disguise for benevolent totalitarianism. Americans in vast numbers just go along with the system, so its social and moral depravity prospers under the cloak of democracy. The people love democracy because they love evil more than righteousness.

We are now reaping what’s been sown, though you wouldn’t know it from MSM reporting. Media are ignoring the exploding rate of black-on-white crime. If the incidents are reported at all, the racial nature of the attacks is glossed over in a way that dismisses any chance that racism could be construed as the motivating factor.

Here are just a few of the dozens of recent instances you no doubt heard little or nothing about:
  • In New Haven, Conn., Brooks Macquarrie was test-driving a scooter when he stopped at a red light. A group of blacks approached him, including one with an “angry look” in his eye who was riding a bicycle. Macquarrie was hit in the back of the head. The next thing he remembers is waking up in a hospital with broken ribs, a fractured eye socket, a broken nose, head injuries and 21 stitches. Police say he was hit by a car. Onlookers told a different story and said they saw two black youths riding away on the scooter, which has not been recovered. Macquarrie’s attack was preceded and succeeded by numerous attacks by black mobs on joggers and pedestrians in the area and around the nearby Yale University campus. Other instances in New Haven, including those on or near the Yale University campus, can be read here.
  • An 88-year-old World War II veteran named Delbert Belton was found in his car with serious head injuries in Spokane, Wash. He died the next morning. Police were looking for two black teenagers seen on surveillance video.
  • Black mob violence has become as prevalent in Memphis, Tenn., as it is in New Haven, if not more so, though the city’s newspaper and television stations refuse to acknowledge it. It’s especially violent at the city’s downtown Beale Street entertainment district, where nursing student David Santucci was gunned down by three blacks who did not even rob him. Santucci’s shooting occurred two days after and two blocks away from where Emily Anderson was assaulted and robbed at gunpoint by four blacks. In fact, mob fights, shootings, stampedes, bash robberies and armed robberies have become almost weekly occurrences near Beale Street. In the days before Santucci’s murder and while reporting on another Beale Street incident, a local television station called the downtown area “very safe” and said crime there was “rare.”
  • In Pinellas County, Fla., cellphone video captured three black boys on a school bus viciously beating a younger, smaller white boy for about a minute before they opened the emergency exit and ran away. The bus driver, also black, may face charges because not only did he not intervene to stop the attack, but he failed to check on the victim’s welfare after if it was over.
  • Two white off-duty police officers from Minneapolis visiting Green Bay, Wis., were attacked by nine black men. Green Bay police were summoned but made no arrests, and the Minneapolis officers accused Green Bay police of “running a clown show.” In describing the incident, Minneapolis officers reportedly used the word “nigger.” They were subsequently suspended and their chief apologized to the people of Green Bay.
  • In Brunswick, Ga., in March, two black teenagers attempting to rob a white woman shot the woman’s baby as the 13-month-old sat in a stroller. During the trial for 18-year-old De’Marquise Elkins, co-defendant Dominique Lang, 15, said Elkins demanded Sherry West give up her purse and twice counted down from five before shooting into the ground, then into West’s leg and then shooting the baby. Elkins’ mother and sister have been charged with evidence tampering and lying to police in the case.
On his website whitegirlbleedalot.com, author Colin Flaherty documents dozens if not hundreds of recent instances of black-on-white crime and mob violence. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in a review of Flaherty’s book White Girl Bleed a Lot,  the phrase Flaherty used for his website and title of his book about the rise of black violence was uttered by a member of a black youth mob that attacked whites during a Fourth of July celebration in Milwaukee last year.

The ongoing nature of the rising violence is being suppressed by the MSM and elites who wish to cover the effects of their decades-long policies. Meanwhile, the elites push ever harder to disarm the populace — often using some of these very instances in their justification — and to create a nation of victims defenseless before the onslaught, hoping to force them to clamor for relief with the belief that only an authoritarian police state can provide it.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Still at the RightOnline Seminar and the 
Defending the American Dream Summit.  
Here are a few pics...


Guess who this is with me...sans his famous cowboy hat...









Florida Governor Rick Scott








Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindhl was amazing and brought the audience to its feet.  Definite VP material.




Texas Bea (my fellow Lady Patriot) & David Horowitz.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio...Rubio/Jindhl...
Rubio/Cruz...Cruz/Rubio ...all possibilities I like for sure.





Black Ninja &Wild Bill                                                              







Wild Bill & Javier Manjarres...'The Shark Tank' on Radio Row           



                                                

Thursday, August 29, 2013

British Parliament Debates War With Syria, U.S. Congress Vacations

by /Personal Liberty Digest

As chatter about the prospect of the United States going maverick in Syria continues, the Nation’s international peers are receiving praise from some U.S. lawmakers for taking a more thoughtful approach to intervening in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Representative Scott Rigell (R-Va.) lauded the British Parliament on Thursday, noting that U.S. lawmakers are still on recess— despite the President’s war rhetoric— while the Brit lawmakers have robustly debated a resolution on military intervention in Syria.

The Parliament, he said, is having a debate, while the United States is not. “Given the history our two Nations,’ he continued, “there is a bit of irony here.”

Rigell said that he is happy to see that the evident slowing in British momentum towards military action has made the White House pull back “just a bit.” The lawmaker also noted that Congressional approval prior to intervention would be a sign of strength for the U.S.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also noted the absence of Congressional debate on the matter.
Cruz tweeted:

This just got sent to me:

Fox News has a blockbuster report published tonight which sheds further light on why the Obama administration has been involved in a massive cover up surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack.

New reports indicate that rebels allied with al-Qaida were being trained in Benghazi and then sent up to fight in the Syrian civil war against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. These include terrorist networks involved in the September 11th terrorist attack on our U.S. compound in Benghazi.

The Obama administration knows that if the American people were to learn that they were helping fund, train and transport al-Qaida terrorists to fight in Syria - some of whom were behind the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans and injured countless others, there would be a severe backlash from the American people.

Here's the headline from Fox News and an excerpt from their report:

U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials.

Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the camps on condition of anonymity.

The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.

The Obama administration is demonstrating once again that it is the most deceitful and manipulative presidential administrations in our nation's history.

To all my blog followers...


Just finished packing for my trip to the Americans for Prosperity sponsored


Like most girlie-patriots I am grossly over-packed for the 3-1/2 days I'll be gone but I had to pack enough spikes and platform wedges to go with every outfit I'm bringing...and I'll probably end up in jeans most of the time...LOL 

Will be doing a lot of interviews up there and meeting up and having a blast with Wild Bill and others from fb-land...and meeting Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindhl, Rick Perry, Michelle Malkin, and others. 

Will post pics when I can. Will also be checking my blog daily when time allows and will post articles, but I will NOT have time to write an original op-ed until Monday.  Please bear with me as this is one very important convention and summit.


Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Rest in Peace...justice will be served.





Russia: US Syria Intervention Will Lead to 'Catastrophic Consequences'

  •  
Image: Russia: US Syria Intervention Will Lead to 'Catastrophic Consequences'By Hiram Reisner / Newsmax

Perceived imminent Western military action in Syria is not only illegal but also could lead to possible "catastrophic" intervention into the affairs of a sovereign state and destabilize the region as a whole, Russian leaders warn.

 Moscow has indicated it would not interfere with Western military action against Syria, but it has stressed Western nations are making a mad dash before all is known about the alleged nerve gas attack in a Damascus suburb that has reportedly  killed more than 1,000 people, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

The Russians are also stressing that the expected imminent attack without United Nations imprimatur is charging into dangerous territory.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, to once again create artificial, unproven excuses for an armed intervention in the region, are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement posted on the ministry's website Tuesday.

Lukashevich also pointed to the cancellation of a scheduled meeting between Russian and U.S. officials on how to resolve the Syrian crisis as a sign that an attack is imminent, the Monitor reports.

"Moscow perceives Washington’s decision to postpone this meeting literally on the eve of the agreed-upon date with serious disappointment," he said.

Georgy Mirsky, an expert with the Center for Development and Modernization with the official Institute of World Economy and International Relations, said,  "There's nothing Russia can or should do to stop Western military intervention in Syria."

"Syria isn't Libya. Battles are going on everywhere, and it will prove impossible to set up a secure zone. There is zero chance that Western forces will launch a ground war. So, it will be limited cruise missile attacks from ships; that might weaken [President Bashar Assad], but will not likely be decisive," he said.

"Russia can sit and watch. A propaganda war will rage, and Moscow will be able to say that we wanted peace, we were working for the Geneva-2 conference, but it didn't happen because they opted for military force instead," Mirsky said.

"As things stand, developments will play into Moscow's hands. The U.S. will compromise itself with another war in another Arab country, and look more than ever like a neo-colonialist power. Why would Obama want this?"

On the 50th anniversary of the "I Had A Dream' speech...



"We're actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision."

That is what an anonymous administration official told the Washington Post this week about President Barack Obama's deliberations on whether he will personally involve the United States in another Middle Eastern war by ordering military action in Syria.

But the only law that ultimately matters here is the one Obama swore to preserve, protect and defend: the Constitution of the United States.

As recently as six years ago, Obama exhibited a clear understanding of the power the Constitution does and does not give the president in using military force.

"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, then a presidential candidate, told the Boston Globe in Dec. 20, 2007 interview.

Obama, then, could have been channeling James Madison or George Washington. He perfectly expressed the original -- and, thus, the correct -- meaning of the constitutional language on the use of military force.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power to "declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

As this column has noted in the past, James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention -- as reported in Max Farrand's "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787" -- demonstrate that the Framers intended this language to deny the president the power to use military force without prior congressional authorization unless it was necessary to "repel" an attack.

The draft language discussed in the convention on Aug. 17, 1787, said Congress would have the power "to make war."

Charles Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina, suggested giving this power to the Senate alone because, among other reasons, the House "would be too numerous for such deliberations" and the Senate would be "more acquainted with foreign affairs."

Pierce Butler, also from South Carolina, proposed "vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it."

It was then that Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Madison himself "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."

Roger Sherman of Connecticut said: "The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."

"Mr. Gerry," according to Madison's notes, "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war."

George Mason, reported Madison, was against "giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred 'declare' to 'make.'"

The Framers then voted to give Congress the power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

George Washington presided over this Constitutional Convention that decided Congress should retain control over the use of military force except when it was necessary for the president to "repel sudden attacks." As longtime Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher noted in his definitive book on the issue, "Presidential War Power," Washington confirmed the original meaning of this power when he dealt with the Creek Nation.

The Creek Nation, at that time, lived near the border of Georgia and territory claimed by Spain.

On July 24, 1793, Secretary of War Henry Knox and General Andrew Pickens wrote a memorandum to President Washington (that can now be found at the National Archives' Founders Online website).

Here Pickens suggested that Washington raise an army of 5,000 men because Pickens was "decidedly of opinion that a demonstration of the power of the United States to punish the Creeks is the only measure which can be adopted to secure from their cruel depredations the Inhabitants of the South Western frontiers."

A month later, Washington responded to letter from Gov. William Moultrie of South Carolina asking about the Creeks.

"The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress;" President Washington wrote the governor, "therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

Congress never did authorize offensive action against the Creek Nation, so Washington never took it.

Obama intervened in Libya's civil war without congressional authorization. Now, he ponders military action in Syria without congressional authorization. If House Speaker John Boehner meekly stands by as Obama repeats this usurpation of congressional power, he will have betrayed his own duty to defend our Constitution.


Amid the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one complaint became almost a refrain: What about economic justice?

After all, the official title of the event was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

The line "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" resides in the rhetorical pantheon with "Four score and seven years ago" and "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union."

But in one of the fascinating ironies that make history so compelling, King didn't plan to use the "I have a dream" line. His prepared remarks were winding down when gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted to him, "Tell them about the dream, Martin. Tell them about the dream!" -- a passage she had heard from him previously.

Even after the march, A. Philip Randolph, the march's director, received more coverage than King. Randolph spoke of civil rights, too, of course. But he also emphasized more typical left-wing economic fare: "It falls to us to demand new forms of social planning, to create full employment and to put automation at the service of human needs, not at the service of profits."

The left-wing journalist Murray Kempton said of the march's overall message: "No expression one-tenth so radical has ever been seen or heard by so many Americans." Many on the left have felt frustrated that this agenda -- which King subscribed to wholeheartedly -- doesn't share the same moral and political stature as King's dream of a colorblind society.

The frustration is understandable, but it stems from a fundamental confusion. As countless commentators have long noted, the genius of King's appeal to an ideal of colorblindness was deeply patriotic, rooted in the foundational principles of the republic. The march was set in the year of the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, which King invoked: "But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination."

"In a sense," King continued, "we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In the American context, these are universal appeals. King pleaded for the fulfillment of America's classically liberal revolution. At the core of that revolution was the concept of negative liberty -- being free from government-imposed oppression. That is why the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative or designed to restrict the power of government. "The Congress shall make no law" that abridges freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

This arrangement has never fully satisfied the left. The founding philosopher of American progressivism, John Dewey, argued for positive rights: We have the right to material things -- homes, jobs, education, health care, etc. Herbert Croly, the author of the progressive bible "The Promise of American Life," argued that the founding was unfinished and only by turning America into a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy could our "promise" be fulfilled. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to in effect replace the Bill of Rights with a new "economic bill of rights" along these lines. That was the intellectual tradition of Randolph and, to a significant degree, Barack Obama.

The problem is that, in America at least, appeals to social planning and guaranteed economic rights are not universal. They are, deservedly, controversial and contestable. They are all the more so when decoupled from the idea of colorblindness.

Which brings us to another compelling historical surprise. Conservatives, who were too often on the wrong side of civil rights in 1963, are champions of race neutrality, while King's self-appointed heirs are more inclined to champion the ideas that never spoke to the hearts of all Americans, or to mint new causes they assure us King would have cared deeply about had he lived. That's their prerogative, but they shouldn't be surprised when such efforts fail to capture the hearts and minds of all Americans.

Exposed: Al Jazeera Airs Fake Brotherhood Injuries and Deaths


While Al Jazeera’s pro-Islamist lies and propaganda have been exposed numerous times — lies and propaganda being doctrinally permissible through taqiyya — consider the following video recently aired live by the terrorist supporting TV network.  A near hysterical woman is heard lambasting the Egyptian military for supposedly killing peaceful Brotherhood protesters, while the Al Jazeera crew videotapes a man who appears to be either unconscious or dead — a supposed victim of the military.

His hand rests on his torso; his shirt under his hand is covered with blood, implying there is a bullet wound in that spot. However, when the unsuspecting doctor treating him tries to lift the man’s shirt, this supposedly unconscious or slain man — with his eyes still shut and his facial expression unmoved — subtly lifts his left leg both to push the doctor’s hand away and block his unharmed and blood-free torso from being taped by Al Jazeera. Of course, the person videotaping instantly stopped — but not before enough of this shameful episode was recorded, proving Al Jazeera’s nonstop pro-Brotherhood propaganda campaign, one naively or intentionally followed by most of the Western media.

See the video here:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/exposed-al-jazeera-airs-fake-brotherhood-injuries-and-deaths/

[Note: The scene in question plays from :01-:06, and then is followed by Arabic text from the person who taped and posted it on YouTube, and then replays again several times from :16-:28.]
In Pursuit Of Martin Luther King’s Dream
He imagined opportunity, but we’re creating dependency
By: LTC Allen West
Today marks the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. He delivered it five score years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, hence the decision to give it in Lincoln’s shadow at his memorial site in Washington, D.C.

Now we are two score and 10 years from the date of Dr. King’s monumental speech to ensure that the self-evident truth defined by Thomas Jefferson and echoed by Lincoln – “that all men are created equal” – lives up to its meaning. It is quite appropriate that the monuments to these three astute Americans are within eyeshot of each other.

However, where have we come in these 50 years and what should we celebrate on this anniversary? 
Have we achieved the dream Dr. King hoped we would? I say we are not there yet, and in some ways we have gone backward.

Blacks are chained in economic bondage

A half-century ago, Dr. King said: “The Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”

Today there can be no doubt that we have highly successful blacks in all walks of life, but when we examine the state of America’s inner cities, we must all be appalled. Shall I say Detroit?

We have fought to break the chains of physical bondage, but the chains of economic bondage are even worse. This is not about social justice, but it is about ensuring that the economic opportunities of America can resurrect small-business entrepreneurship in the black community.

Our economic, tax and regulatory policies must promote free-market growth, innovation, ingenuity and investment. Instead, our policies are expanding the dependency society, not the opportunity society.

We need to promote the growth of small community banks to provide the capital for entrepreneurs in inner cities who have ideas in their heads and determination in their hearts. The Reagan administration pushed this philosophy via urban economic empowerment zones.

Dr. King also stated that “America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.” Today, the government is issuing welfare by way of electronic benefits transfer cards and even recruiting people to enroll in the program. The government is issuing free cell phones.

This is not the dream Dr. King wanted us to live. As a matter of fact, Booker T. Washington built a three-pronged attack plan for the black community – education, entrepreneurship and self-reliance. 
That was Dr. King’s dream.

The travesties of black crime and abortion

If we had economic opportunities and better education – and remember, President Obama cancelled the latter when he killed the District of Columbia’s school voucher program – maybe we would not have the record high unemployment in the black community. The problem is especially acute among black teenagers, who it seems are so bored that they hunt down and kill innocent people.

Not far from Dr. King’s birthplace in Atlanta, a young black teenager sits accused of shooting a 13-month-old baby in the face. That is not part of the dream.

We also are witnessing the complete breakdown and collapse of the family, which was the foundational strength of the black community. Today, 72 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. That is not part of the dream.

Dr. King talked about the promissory note of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the guarantee of unalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, when it comes to life, over the past two score years, mothers have aborted some 13 million black babies. The black community would be 36 percent greater save for this tragedy, this genocide.

How many babies never got the chance to pursue Dr. King’s dream – the American dream? How many will never get to be among the next generation of doctors, lawyers, successful businessmen and women, prominent entertainers and sports figures. This travesty is certainly not part of Dr. King’s dream.

So where are the voices speaking up about these issues?

Booker T. Washington stated in 1911: There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.

Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs.
Living the dream and fighting to win it for others

My challenge is simple: Shall we just hear the same ole rhetorical speeches on the 50th anniversary of Dr. King’s “dream” speech, or shall we sincerely assess where we have come since Aug. 28, 1963?

In 1961 when I was born in Atlanta, in the same neighborhood as Dr. King, my parents could not go to Fort Lauderdale Beach or Palm Beach Island in Florida. Fifty years, later I was sworn in to Congress to represent Florida’s 22d District, which included the coastline from Fort Lauderdale to Jupiter, including Palm Beach.

I was the first black Republican member of Congress from Florida since Josiah T. Walls in 1874. The election was not about the color of my skin; it was about the content of my character. How paradoxical, then, that John Lewis, who spoke on the famed day of Dr. King’s speech in 1963 and went on to serve in Congress (actually as my representative in Atlanta), campaigned against me in 2010.

I still have a dream, one deeply rooted in the American dream – for my two daughters, for the black community, for all Americans and those who seek liberty and freedom. My dream is not based upon servitude to the government but rather upon exceptionalism.

I have been to California, Colorado and New Hampshire. I was educated in Tennessee and born and raised in Georgia. I am promoting and living Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream by example – a dream that I was reminded of every time as a young boy walking past Ebenezer Baptist Church on Auburn Ave.

Now the next generation is depending on us to fulfill Dr. King’s dream and ensure the promise of the American dream for them.
Steadfast and Loyal,


Op-ed:
Sending us to war with a country we're NOT at war with...at least NOT yet
By: Diane Sori

Having shot his big mouth off one too many times about ‘red lines’ now Obama has to save face and put up or shut up…and so he is sending America to war but NOT for the reasons he claims he’s doing that for.

Saying he’s NOT only concerned about the rising death toll in Syria, but also concerned with the ‘neighborhood’ as a whole (only a community organizer would call volatile warring countries a ‘neighborhood’)…a ‘neighborhood’ full of oil…oil translating into dollars…lots and lots of dollars…dollars he wishes to get his hands on to feed his radical leftist agenda…and more importantly a ‘neighborhood’ where if Syria falls to islamic forces this would be the finishing piece of the puzzle…a puzzle with Israel at its center surrounded by those who wish her gone…a puzzle Obama is more than happy to contribute to.

Remember, in the past whenever Israel attacked Syria’s weapons storage facilities Syria held back responding. But now a representative from Assad’s ally Iran, Hossein Sheikholeslam, the Director General of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs Bureau, has publicly stated through Iran’s state run Fars News Agency, that if the US dares to attack Syria “the Zionist regime will be the first victim”…and that my friends means Israel. And Israel is taking these words quite seriously for they are currently in the process of passing out gas masks to its citizens. And if Syria does indeed attack them, Israel will ‘take action’ and rightly so for its high past time that she say ‘NO more’.

This is what Obama’s wanting to reign down missiles on Syria is all about…Barack HUSSEIN Obama is trying to provoke Israel into retaliating…into de facto starting WWIII. NO question about it for if Israel is forced…manipulated is more like it… to go on the attack against Syria to protect her citizens, that gives Iran and the Arab countries that surround her the go ahead to attack …attack Israel with their ultimate goal being to wipe her off the map.

And so with this maneuver Obama feels his hands are clean…let someone else start the war of Armageddon as long as his 'brethren' come out on top...or so he thinks.

And for those of you who doubt this scenario just put the pieces of the puzzle together one by one, and you can start with the latest maneuver…a maneuver generated to tug at the heartstrings of the compassionate West…a maneuver involving ‘phony’ photos of ‘supposedly’ dead Syrian children. And believe me a number of the recently released photos of ‘dead’ children are staged…staged by the rebels…most likely by the al-Qaeda linked Free Syrian Army...and staged for impact, sympathy, and to evoke the passions for revenge…revenge calling for retaliation against those who could do such a thing to sweet innocent children.

And Barack HUSSEIN Obama counts on the hearts in America to be moved by these photos…moved enough to support his reasons to send us to war.

But if you look at the newest photos and put aside in your mind the older legitimate photos of people you’ve seen dropping in the streets…taken with cell phones some shakily held and somewhat blurry as they would be if taken in the midst of all the surrounding turmoil and chaos…in some you can clearly see the pain on the dying people’s faces…the foaming at the mouth…the vomit…the stains on their clothes from urinating and defecating on themselves as the sarin gas takes hold…and if you compare them with the newest photos of the ‘supposedly’ dead children you will be amazed at the difference for these ‘victims’ are squeaky clean and look ‘posed’ like they were sleeping. Notice how ‘crisp’ and in focus the photos are…NO shakily held cameras here…photos more like a pre-arranged photo shoot…but more importantly NO foaming at the mouth…NO vomit and human waste stains on their clothing…NO blue lips one of the markers of sarin gas exposure…and most critical of all NO blood on their small faces for the simple fact is that sarin gas causes seizures and convulsions and someone in the throws of either would bite down hard on their tongue causing much blood…but NOT a drop of blood is showing on any of these children’s faces or clothing.

And by the way, check out the circled area in the photo below…dead children don’t hold up photos for dead hands are flaccid and wouldn’t be able to hold them (rigor mortus does NOT set in immediately). Also, after going through many photos it became quite obvious that ‘certain’ children appeared over and over again…in different photos taken at different locations.

Were they ‘knocked out’ with drugs, posed, photos taken, and then woken up…I have NO answer to that, but it has been documented and proven before that in the past many photos coming out of Syria, especially those from the side of the Syrian rebels have indeed been staged and/or photoshopped…done so to evoke sympathy and compassion for their islamic cause…and Obama is doing just this with the photos of ‘supposedly’ dead children…gassed he claims by those loyal to Assad.

Have children died by poison sarin gas in Syria...of course they have (by the same poison sarin gas that Saddam used on the Kurds with the excess moved to Syria before we entered Iraq), but the gassing has come from the side of the rebels...by the rebels but still attributed by Obama to Assad, as Obama sides with the rebels...rebels who have sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda and to his brethren in the Muslim Brotherhood. But NO matter as the pictures of dead children is one of Obama’s ‘supposed’ reasons to send four warships armed with up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles each and position them off Syria’s coast…warships ready to reign down missiles on Assad’s forces at a moment’s notice…and doing so without evoking the Constitutionally required ‘War Powers’ clause just like he did in Libya. Once again Obama is overstepping his presidential bounds and slapping Congress in the face as he ignores the fact that our Constitution states that it’s Congress who has the authority to declare war…and reigning down missiles on a country we currently are NOT at war with nor who is at war with us…a country that poses NO threat to us or to our national security…is indeed a declaration of war.

A declaration of war is being issued in a deliberate, calculated, and manipulative prelude to WWIII…and Barack HUSSEIN Obama built it and outright owns it…and is using America’s military as his choice of delivery and he hopes Israel as his bait.

And American citizens must understand that we do NOT have a moral imperative or obligation to act either for or against Assad’s government, for Syria was NEVER our friend nor our ally, and they have always sided with those out to destroy Israel…Israel our one true friend and ally in the entire Middle East is being thrown to the wolves in all this subterfuge over the ‘supposed’ gassing of children for remember, the Syrian civil war has been going on for almost three years now with a death toll over 100,000, yet it 'miraculously' took these photos to push Obama into action.

And, even as bad as Assad is…and make NO mistake that he is a dictator in every sense of the word…NO angel for sure but less of a devil than al-Qaeda…Assad needs help in crushing the growing al-Qaeda presence in his country and in toning down the rhetoric against Israel.

And while we should stay out of Syria completely…for their civil war is NOT our war…if Obama was an honorable man and had to side America with anyone it should have been with Assad against the al-Qaeda supported rebels…Putin knows this and has aligned Russia accordingly. But Obama knows NOTHING from honor, and with his threatened impending military action against a country we are NOT at war with again proves that his loyalties lie NOT with America, the American people, or with those in the Middle East who are truly seeking freedom, but with those out to kill us all…and the sooner Congress and the media accept this as truth and stop feeding into and perpetrating the lies the better off we’ll all be.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Debt Ceiling Could Hit Sooner Than Anyone Thinks

Default would be a disaster. So why does no one know when it'd happen?

By and

No one truly enjoys a debt-limit fight. The debt ceiling is a time bomb with a faulty timer: All of Washington sees it ticking toward default, but nobody knows exactly when it will explode.

In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew projected that the department's "extraordinary measures" currently being taken to avoid default will be "exhausted in the middle of October." From there, Lew writes, the United States would have only whatever cash Treasury has on hand, estimated to be about $50 billion. Lew calls that potential situation "unacceptable."

But Lew, like everyone else, is just working off his department's best guess.

Treasury doesn't get to pick a date for default. Rather, the department is subject to the ebb and flow of government revenues and expenditures. And those figures are anything but predictable, because how much the government owes its creditors on a given day—and how much cash it has to pay them—is based on a host of volatile economic, legal, and political factors.

"It's very difficult to tell, particularly this far out," when exactly Treasury would have to default on its debts, said Steve Bell of the Bipartisan Policy Center. "October is an extremely lumpy month. Some days, there's cash coming in; other days, there's cash going out."

And that unpredictability makes an accidental default all the more likely, Bell said, even if neither side wants it to happen.

"That's the danger. It's not that somebody plans to do this," he said. "It's that this is the time when it's very, very easy for mistakes to get made."

Bell, a former top Republican staffer on the Senate Budget Committee, cited a host of external factors that could shift Treasury's default date. Chief among them: an unexpected military action that would cost billions daily, such as the one many are calling on the Obama administration to undertake in Syria.

Another big question is whether Treasury can delay certain intergovernmental payments—such as contributions to the Medicare and Social Security trust funds—without running afoul of legal challenges. That is an open question, Bell said. "I don't know, and I just don't think anybody knows," he said. "It has never been tested before."

Even the standard daily variation in the number of bills Treasury deals with could change the equation, Bell said. "They do five [million] to 10 million transactions a day. A lot are big ones from Defense; a lot are tiny from repairmen. They are clumpy, and you put a few together, all of a sudden you're talking about" $4 billion to $6 billion.

The "middle October" deadline came about under artificial circumstances to begin with. In the beginning of this year, facing the "fiscal cliff," Congress made a deal to put off a deal on the debt limit until May 19. At that point, Lew told Congress he was beginning the "standard set of extraordinary measures" to keep the government funded. It's those measures that will run out sometime this fall.

In the summer of 2011, the U.S. almost found out exactly what happens when Treasury hits the ceiling. Looking at an early-August deadline, Congress was able to come to a deal to avert a default crisis only at the last minute. So what would have happened if that had fallen through? Unable to borrow money, by August, the Treasury Department would have been unable to pay almost half of its 80 million monthly payments. Based on how the department decided to prioritize payments, that could have included checks to the 29 million Social Security recipients that were due to go out on Aug. 3. By that date, Treasury would have already had an estimated cash deficit of about $20 billion.

And it's not as if all of the horrors of 2011 were averted. According to a Government Accountability Office report, just the delay in coming to a debt-limit deal alone resulted in a $1.3 billion increase in Treasury's borrowing costs for fiscal 2011.

As squishy as the deadline date is, it's really just a product of the malleable law that birthed it.

Congress created the debt limit in 1939 in the run-up to World War II, largely as a means of giving Treasury a higher borrowing limit with more flexibility to help the war effort—a surprising origin for a law that has become Congress's principal point of leverage for extracting spending cuts from the Obama administration.

Many years ago, I was a member of a committee that was recommending to whom grant money should be awarded. Since I knew one of the applicants, I asked if this meant that I should recuse myself from voting on his application.

"No," the chairman said. "I know him too -- and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time."

The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything -- provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.

He had once spoken to me very authoritatively about Marxian economics, apparently unaware that I was one of the few people who had read all three volumes of Marx's "Capital," and had published articles on Marxian economics in scholarly journals.

What our glib talker was saying might have seemed impressive to someone who had never read "Capital," as most people have not. But it was complete nonsense to me.

Incidentally, he did not get the grant he applied for.

This episode came back to me recently, as I read an incisive column by Charles Krauthammer, citing some of the many gaffes in public statements by the President of the United States.

One presidential gaffe in particular gives the flavor, and suggests the reason, for many others. It involved the Falkland Islands.

Argentina has recently been demanding that Britain return the Falkland Islands, which have been occupied by Britons for nearly two centuries. In 1982, Argentina seized these islands by force, only to have British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher take the islands back by force.

With Argentina today beset by domestic problems, demanding the return of the Falklands is once again a way for Argentina's government to distract the Argentine public's attention from the country's economic and other woes.

Because the Argentines call these islands "the Malvinas," rather than "the Falklands," Barack Obama decided to use the Argentine term. But he referred to them as "the Maldives."

It so happens that the Maldives are thousands of miles away from the Malvinas. The former are in the Indian Ocean, while the latter are in the South Atlantic.

Nor is this the only gross misstatement that President Obama has gotten away with, thanks to the mainstream media, which sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil when it comes to Obama.

The presidential gaffe that struck me when I heard it was Barack Obama's reference to a military corps as a military "corpse." He is obviously a man who is used to sounding off about things he has paid little or no attention to in the past. His mispronunciation of a common military term was especially revealing to someone who was once in the Marine Corps, not Marine "corpse."

Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.

A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

Back during Barack Obama's first year in office, he kept repeating, with great apparent earnestness, that there were "shovel-ready" projects that would quickly provide many much-needed jobs, if only his spending plans were approved by Congress.

He seemed very convincing -- if you didn't know how long it can take for any construction project to get started, after going through a bureaucratic maze of environmental impact studies, zoning commission rulings and other procedures that can delay even the smallest and simplest project for years.

Only about a year or so after his big spending programs were approved by Congress, Barack Obama himself laughed at how slowly everything was going on his supposedly "shovel-ready" projects.

One wonders how he will laugh when all his golden promises about ObamaCare turn out to be false and a medical disaster. Or when his foreign policy fiascoes in the Middle East are climaxed by a nuclear Iran.

"Congress doesn't have a whole lot of core responsibilities," said Barack Obama last week in an astonishing remark.
 
For in the Constitution, Congress appears as the first branch of government. And among its enumerated powers are the power to tax, coin money, create courts, provide for the common defense, raise and support an army, maintain a navy and declare war.

But, then, perhaps Obama's contempt is justified.

For consider Congress' broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.

Why is Obama making plans to launch cruise missiles on Syria?

According to a "senior administration official ... who insisted on anonymity," President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people last week in the two-year-old Syrian civil war.
But who deputized the United States to walk the streets of the world pistol-whipping bad actors.

Where does our imperial president come off drawing "red lines" and ordering nations not to cross them?

Neither the Security Council nor Congress nor NATO nor the Arab League has authorized war on Syria.

Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.

Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assad's cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.

Why did the United States so swiftly dismiss Assad's offer to have U.N. inspectors -- already in Damascus investigating old charges he or the rebels used poison gas -- go to the site of the latest incident?

Do we not want to know the truth?

Are we fearful the facts may turn out, as did the facts on the ground in Iraq, to contradict our latest claims about WMDs? Are we afraid that it was rebel elements or rogue Syrian soldiers who fired the gas shells to stampede us into fighting this war?

With U.S. ships moving toward Syria's coast and the McCainiacs assuring us we can smash Syria from offshore without serious injury to ourselves, why has Congress not come back to debate war?

Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan was sold the same bill of goods the War Party is selling today -- that we can intervene decisively in a Mideast civil war at little or no cost to ourselves.

Reagan listened and ordered our Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war. And he was there when they brought home the 241 dead from the Beirut barracks and our dead diplomats from the Beirut embassy.

The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Congress should cut short its five-week vacation, come back, debate and decide by recorded vote whether Obama can take us into yet another Middle East war.

The questions to which Congress needs answers:

--Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?

--What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?

--If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?

--Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?

--If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?

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.

Perhaps Congress cannot defund Obamacare. But at least they can come back to Washington and tell Obama, sinking poll numbers aside, he has no authority to drag us into another war. His Libyan adventure, which gave us the Benghazi massacre and cover-up, was his last hurrah as war president.

Weapons Of Mass Repetition

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Weapons Of Mass Repetition
UPI
Syrian rebels claim hundreds of people were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces.
In 2003, then-Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency James Clapper told reporters that Saddam Hussein moved his stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria in advance of the second Gulf war, calling it the “the obvious conclusion one draws.” Clapper’s assessment was echoed by a general with the Iraqi Air Force, Georges Sada, who noted as many as 56 flights and multiple truck convoys carted the weapons of mass destruction across the border. The pre-invasion WMD pipeline is further touted by Israeli intelligence, Syrian dissident accounts and even American satellite imagery.

Though there was no doubt Saddam had possessed and used chemical weapons (a fact to which the victims of Iraqi chemical attacks in both Kurdistan and Iran would doubtless testify were they not dead from chemical-weapons exposure), they had vanished from Iraq. Putting aside the hotly debated veracity of President George W. Bush’s infamous rationale as well as the eyewitness accounts of those few people who survived the aforementioned war crimes in Iraq and Iran, the question requires an answer: Where did Saddam’s stockpile of chemical weapons go?

Last week, the Syrian government of Bashar Assad decided to cross whatever line comes after the “red line” that President Barack Hussein Obama declared uncrossable more than a year ago. In a move that seemed only slightly less desperate than would one by the Comcast flack assigned to make MSNBC palatable to the viewers who avoid it like it causes brain cancer, Assad deployed chemical weapons — which he likely borrowed from his fellow Ba’athist wacko, who used to live next door — against his own people.

The body count from Assad’s chemical attack remains unclear, but the reaction was spectacular. By Sunday afternoon, sources were indicating the Obama Administration was preparing a naval strike package against Syrian government targets. By the time you read this, there may well be neighborhoods in Damascus that are even more depressingly miserable than they were before.

But how did the United States of Barack Obama find itself in such a predicament? I was under the impression that the election of Obama in 2008 permanently ended war, oppression and religious intolerance. I mean, they gave the guy the Nobel Peace Prize without a shred of collateral. I’m willing to admit that dealing with the Mideast at a diplomatic level would test the mettle of even a marginally competent statesman — something to which Obama can only aspire.

The Democrats spent most of the 2000s shrieking to the rafters about the warmongering failures of President George W. Bush. Some of their criticisms, although issued for the wrong reasons, were correct. Once it became apparent the WMDs were gone, the whole endeavor became a replay of Vietnam — only with much cooler action scenes and a lower number of wasted American lives. In Iraq, we whacked a homicidal islamofascist and replaced him with a group of homicidal islamofascists because the former was becoming increasingly troublesome and because he had used WMDs before.

Then, Obama got elected in no small way as a result of being one of the few candidates who could say they said “no” to the war. Well, Dennis Kucinich could say that, but he talks to space aliens. And I think Hillary Clinton still says it, but Clinton has always had kind of a weird relationship with reality. Darn it all, Bush had lied to America about WMDs; and any candidate who wasn’t either Obama or the spaceman from Ohio with the semi-hot wife was clearly in on the sham with Bush. We were done with war and done with using phantom WMDs to justify it.

Though he ended direct combat operations in Iraq, Obama replaced them with indirect and somewhat indiscriminate targeting of civilians in Yemen. And despite an apparent media blackout on the topic, combat operations in Afghanistan are still very much a going concern. We certainly remember the recent unpleasantness in Libya — although everyone in the Obama Administration short of the postmaster general lied about it, some of them under oath. I don’t know about the rest of you, but Obama’s idea of hope, change, peace and improving America’s standing in the eyes of the world seems oddly similar to Bush’s. The only real difference appears to be that Bush was more discerning about spying on his own people and was whole let less “droney” — at least over domestic soil.

Look, we can all have a big discussion about the merits of America’s self-assigned role as policeman to the world’s crappiest precincts. I happen to believe there is logic to neutralizing those who seek to do us harm before they can board Air Jihadistan for their flight to Allah’s secret grotto via Cairo; Tel Aviv, Israel; Berlin; Paris; Oslo, Norway; London; New York; Shanksville, Pa.; and wherever else all the hippest suicide bombers are pressing the “send” button on the hotline to the afterlife. I also happen to believe that not everyone who disagrees with me is necessarily enabling islamofascism like Al-Jazeera. But it’s worth noting that we spent nearly 10 years stomping on islamofascists in Iraq — and are still doing so in Afghanistan — over WMDs we knew existed and thought might have been moved to Syria. The guy who won the White House in 2008 and again in 2012 swore up and down that not only was he was going to deliver peace in our time, but he was going to make the world unite in harmony. (Calls to mind that old, cloying Coke jingle.)

In this late age of Obama, countries upon which we could generally count to not completely devolve into an ululating rendition of the Hatfields and McCoys have devolved into open warfare. The Egyptians — evidently not content with behaving like medieval Christians — are now targeting 21st century Christians. And now, we’re gearing up for war in Syria because some lunatic islamofascist used WMDs against a bunch of lunatic islamofascists. Scroll past the endless speeches about hope and change. Ignore the pronouncements by every Democrat from Central Park West to Malibu that Obama would be the most awesome thing short of the second coming, if not even cooler than that.

The Navy is preparing to engage in direct action against the homicidal islamofascist running Syria, presumably to replace him with a group of homicidal islamofascists, and all because he used WMDs, which Administration official Clapper says he got from Iraq. “It’s déjà vu all over again.”