Because of Trump

Because of Trump blob

I was 10 years old playing cops and robbers with my friends. My side kept losing.  I was tired of losing.  So, when an opponent pointed his toy pistol at me and yelled “bang, bang you’re dead” I decided there and then not be dead. We won because I discovered I was wearing a bullet proof vest.

Feminists, environmentalists, the liberal media, Barack, Hillary, the thought and speech police and even RINO’s have all taken shots at Trump and yelled ”bang, bang you’re dead.”   What they wanted was a corpse—what they got was rising poll numbers.

-One famous columnist wrote an article entitled Don Voyage after Trump criticized John McCain.  

Don voyage

-Pundits were falling all over themselves to declare the Donald’s death after his tweet about Megyn Kelly.   One commentator said “Hurricane Trump blows away speech police.”

I cannot think of another time in American history where such a massive, collective bluff has been called.  By refusing to die, Trump is ending a reign of terror against free speech.  Statements that once ended careers can no longer do so. 

Because of Trump, you can call illegal aliens, well, illegal.  Because of Trump, you can say that Mexico is treating us rotten.  Because of Trump, you can declare China and Russia enemies.  Because of Trump, you can say that the Iran deal is the stupidest agreement in history.

Because of Trump you can call the entire political class “a bunch of losers.”  You can even say openly that Hillary “is a liar and a criminal.”

Because of Trump, an entire frustrated and disenfranchised group of Americans now speak out and “ain’t nothing you can do about it.”

Bullies–the usual suspects–used to control the narrative. Obama, Biden, Holder, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Sharpton and NBC spun that proverbial web of deceit called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

P.C. provided cover for unbridled stupidity.   Common sense was held at bay by threats of being called racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, hater, and a host of other labels. Trump-and-Kelly

It seems like forever that we have been ordered to look the other way as America was being ravaged, bled and left for dead.

In retrospect, doesn’t it seem insane that we were told to shut up when illegals murdered innocent Americans?

Because of Trump, Blacks are breaking ranks with Democrats. The party ordered them to side with illegals.

Monday night, a black woman stood before a city council meeting in Huntington Park, California and blasted its members after someone made a comparison between illegal immigrants and black slaves.

The woman, identified as Chanell Temple, said she had not intended to speak at the meeting, but the comparison was too much. And because the council had just appointed two illegals to city commission positions, Temple let them have it:

“Please do not tarnish the name of black slaves by comparing them to your plight. There’s no comparison. None. Black slaves did not break into this country, okay. They were brought here against their will. Also, black slaves are not immigrants. Immigrants are people with a choice, they come here by choice. Black slaves didn’t have choice.

The woman continued saying that America has “been good to illegal immigrants” and can’t recall a single one that has ever been “hung from a tree.” She added, “My people commit a crime, they go to jail. You people commit a crime, they get amnesty.”  She later said, ” I am backing Donald Trump all the way!”

Chanell

Do not construe this blog as an endorsement of Trump for president.  On the other hand, make no mistake; Donald Trump can be elected president.  He is gaining support among independents, Blacks and Latinos.  Just a couple of months ago he was down 27 points in the polls to Hillary Clinton.  Now he is within 6 points.

Now for a personal note: I can finally confess something to you. As a Christian Evangelist, I have faced every kind of accusation you can imagine from both inside and outside the Church because I spoke out against Barrack Obama. I faced threats you cannot imagine.  I was told that my ministry was over.  Even close pastor friends closed their churches to me. One pastor in Indianapolis said that the anointing had left me.

The greatest lie was when they said that young people would no longer turn to Christ in my meetings.

Because I knew that I was speaking the truth, I refused to back down or apologize.

The result is that every threat proved to be a lie…especially the one about young people, because they are coming to Christ in droves. Through it all, I knew that Christ was with me, and His power intensified within me.

When I began these blogs all you could hear in the American pulpit about Barack Obama was crickets.  Now many are bold to speak out.  Now it is almost fashionable for pastors to take open positions on many issues that were considered off-limits.

What I have just said I have never said publicly.  I have never defended myself against critics or cowards nor will I start doing it now.

Trump is by no means a role model for preachers but I identify with him.  He called their bluff and beat them.  Because of Trump I finally felt free to tell you.

During the debate, Trump looked at the other nine candidates and said, “if it weren’t for me, we wouldn’t be talking about this now.”  I gave a knowing grin to the T.V. and said, “exactly.”

Living Proof Branson ad

We are doing everything that past nations have done right before a dictatorship

PLANET-OF-APES_610

We are doing everything that past nations have done right before a dictatorship

By Mario Murillo

My greatest prayer as an evangelist is that God would wake up His core in America.  Nothing is more chilling than to witness  millions ignoring the inevitable lessons of history.

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in  St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:            Obama: 19                McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:       Obama: 580,000        McCain: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Now that Obama has granted amnesty to 11 million illegals – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Our Apathy is demonstrated in our inability to  have natural outrage to Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS scandal, rampant lawlessness and the widespread preoccupation with vileness.   

Later:  My cry for America

A Nation that Lives off of Lies

APphoto_APTOPIX Police Shooting Missouri

A Nation that Lives off of Lies

By Mario Murillo

No young man should die at 18 years of age.  Michael Brown should be alive and his parents should not be suffering this unspeakable loss.  We all extend our heartfelt condolences to them at this time.

Last night we saw riots.  But here’s the thing, the looting, burning and shooting was based on a lie.  In fact, so much of what America has become is based on lies.

Police brutality is real, wrong and must be stopped. But it will not be eradicated by a lie.

With reason, compassion and grinding honesty the Grand Jury in this case fretted, grieved and separated fact from fiction.  The physical evidence showed that this was not about race but about a 6 foot 4 inch 296 pound man who an eye witness wrote “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.” The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”

140812-michael-brown-1338_8c5ad41dd423c28ed02e37e39222844e

America had a rare glimpse at honesty when St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch (a Democrat) with great care, thoroughness and patience explained the verdict, and answered questions.   He told the truth.   It enraged some of the reporters because it did not feed the lie that sells their rags.  Michael Brown will be canonized as a civil rights hero but that too will be a lie.

The disease extends way beyond black leaders and media shills.  We as a nation are now almost wholly dependent on keeping lies alive for a living.

Look at the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama lied when they told you that the Benghazi terrorist attack was about a video. Why did they lie?   Obama had to lie to be reelected.  Hillary agreed to lie because of her presidential aspirations.  They are living off of a lie.

Our military says the Fort Hood terrorist attack was “workplace violence.”  Again this is a lie that saves some of the brass their jobs.

Jonathan Gruber was caught telling us that Obamacare was built on a lie and that we were too stupid to know that.  He made 3 million dollars promoting the lie.

The biggest lie we have heard yet is that amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants is a good thing.  The Democratic Party is lying to stay in power with the Latino vote.

Illegals have also been told a lie.   We have no jobs for you!  The same party that let you in has created economic policies that killed jobs.   Obama has not created jobs for Americans, much less millions of the largely ill-educated and unskilled newcomers.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

Republicans are also starting to live off of a lie.  With Obama’s executive order, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner just witnessed the greatest act of tyranny against the constitution ever and they will not confront it.  They said “we do not want to appear negative and we want to focus on jobs.”  Oh yeah?  Whose jobs are you trying to save?   Who will stand up for the Constitution?  A true patriot doesn’t live for the short term gain but for the legacy of liberty!  This was an outrage that went unanswered.

Living off of lies is trickles down to all parts of our culture now.  Kim Kardashian must sell that lie that to be a meaningful woman you must take off your clothes.  Eminem must keep the lie alive that dropping “F” bombs at an event honoring veterans is “artistic expression.”  Ben Affleck must suffocate reason in order to call Islam a religion of peace.  On and on it goes.

The American church is not exempt!  Pastors who build an empire on messages that deliberately leave out the Cross, personal repentance, sacrifice and discipleship and the power gifts of the Holy Spirit are also living off of a lie.  While it brought crowds it weakened them.  With all moral lines blurred by celebrity ministers the church is powerless to stop America’s free fall.

Jesus said, “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” Matthew 7: 26, 27.

Every lie will be tested.  There is a storm coming that will expose it.  When lies collapse it is breathtaking.

Look at yourself.  I do not care what job you have or how famous you are…speaking truth, living truth and loving truth is your only safety.  If it hurts your career so be it!  If you lose friends let them go!

reagan blog

We are watching the last gasps of America’s greatness unless we must find people who want to live off of truth.

It is time to go back to what made us prosperous, great and safe.  We believed that our word was our bond.  We believed that convictions mattered more than connections.  We celebrated integrity instead of rewarding infamy.  We knew filth, vileness and treachery when we saw it.   We believed that honesty was its own reward and that God was the only one we needed to please.

You and I can still find treasure.  Tell the liars that you want the real riches that are reserved for those who shake off the lies.

Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners,    Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.  He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.  Psalm 1: 1-3

Poll: Americans find little to like in Washington.

RAGE 2014

Poll: Americans find little to like in Washington.

By NEDRA PICKLER and JENNIFER AGIESTA

Oct 11, 3:32 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Americans are finding little they like about President Barack Obama or either political party, according to a new poll that suggests the possibility of a “throw the bums out” mentality in next year’s midterm elections

The AP-GfK poll finds few people approve of the way the president is handling most major issues and most people say he’s not decisive, strong, honest, reasonable or inspiring.

In the midst of the government shutdown and Washington gridlock, the president is faring much better than his party, with large majorities of those surveyed finding little positive to say about Democrats. The negatives are even higher for the Republicans across the board, with 4 out of 5 people describing the GOP as unlikeable and dishonest and not compassionate, refreshing, inspiring or innovative.

Negativity historically hurts the party in power – particularly when it occurs in the second term of a presidency – but this round seems to be hitting everyone. More people now say they see bigger differences between the two parties than before Obama was elected, yet few like what either side is offering. A big unknown: possible fallout from the unresolved budget battle in Washington.

b1-clancy-obamacare-card
“There needs to be a major change,” said Pam Morrison, 56, of Lincoln, Neb., among those who were surveyed. “I’m anxious for the next election to see what kind of new blood we can get.”The numbers offer warning signs for every incumbent lawmaker, and if these angry sentiments stretch into next year, the 2014 elections could feel much like the 2006 and 2010 midterms when being affiliated with Washington was considered toxic by many voters. In 2006, voters booted Republicans from power in the House and Senate, and in 2010, they fired Democrats who had been controlling the House.

Morrison describes herself as a conservative Republican and said she is very concerned about how her adult children are going to afford insurance under Obama’s health care law. She places most of the blame for the shutdown on the president, but she also disapproves of the job Congress is doing. “I don’t think they’re working together,” Morrison said.

“Congress needs to take a look at their salaries, they need to take a cut to their salaries and they need to feel some of the pain the American people are feeling,” said Morrison, who is married to a government worker who she said has been deemed essential and is still on the job.

People across the political spectrum voiced disappointment.

Suzanne Orme, a 74-year-old retiree and self-described liberal who lives in California’s Silicon Valley, says the shutdown is more the Republican Party’s fault. “The Republicans seem to be a bunch of morons who aren’t going to give in for anything. I just don’t get it with them. They are just crazy,” she said.

But she also said she strongly disapproves of the way Obama is handling his job, and doesn’t find him likable, decisive, strong, honest, compassionate, refreshing, ethical, inspiring or reasonable. The only positive attribute she gave him was innovative.

obama_angry_2012_8_6

“It sounds like he’s kind of weak. He says one thing and does another,” Orme said after taking the survey. For example, she said Obama hasn’t made good on his promise to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and changed his position on whether people should be penalized for failing to get health insurance.

“I voted for him, and he’s turned out to be a big disappointment,” she said. “I mean, what’s the alternative?” Orme said it just seems to her that Washington is run by lobbyists and consumed by financial greed.

A bad sign for Democrats is that Obama has bled support among independents – 60 percent disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, while only 16 percent approve. As he began his second term in January, independents tilted positive, 48 percent approved and 39 percent disapproved.

angry

Neither party can win without the support of independents, with only about a third of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as Democrats and about a quarter as Republicans.

Obama has held onto support from Carol Cox, a 59-year-old independent from Hartville, Ohio, who says she feels the president helps people in need. She is happy to see his health care law that offers coverage to the uninsured and to people with pre-existing conditions, although she thinks the rollout could have been better. “I think he’s doing an OK job,” she said of the president.

But she is not happy with either party in Congress. She said the shutdown is affecting her family’s investments and she’s concerned about the future of Social Security. “I’m really angry and frustrated. I can’t believe how mad I am about this.”

As for next year’s congressional election, she said, “I would love to see just a total turnover.”

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Oct. 3-7, 2013, using KnowledgePanel, GfK’s probability-based online panel. It involved online interviews with 1,227 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents.

The survey was designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Respondents to the survey were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods and later interviewed online. Those who didn’t otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to get online at no cost.

Support for President Obama’s call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll.

blog insert Jan 25

Support for President Obama’s call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria ran aground Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.

Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force — a strong indication that the administration’s efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.

The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public.

“What we need to do is make sure the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before we do this,” Reid said.

The delay also came amid reports that Russia was seeking a deal with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Obama said in television interviews Monday such a deal could circumvent the need for U.S. military intervention, but senators had not been briefed on the development and expressed skepticism.

“I have no idea what’s going on. It’d be great if the Russians could convince Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community. That’d be a terrific outcome. I just am very dubious and skeptical,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Comments made Monday in London by Secretary of State John Kerry describing the military effort as “unbelievably small” also rankled lawmakers. Graham said Kerry “undercut everything the president has been doing for the last couple of days” to build support.

The rapid clip of senators announcing their opposition on Monday raised serious doubts that the president would be able to muster the necessary support in either the House or Senate. The GOP-led House is not likely to take up a resolution unless the Senate can pass it first. A final Senate vote was expected this weekend, but Reid’s decision to delay the formal debate puts the schedule in flux.

Five GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming all announced opposition Monday, as did Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Briefings by top administration officials and a weekend conversation with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were not enough to sway Alexander. “I see too much risk that the strike will do more harm than good by setting off a chain of consequences that could involve American fighting men and women in another long-term Middle East conflict,” he said.

Heitkamp was the latest in a string of Democratic senators from conservative states to come out in opposition, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. Heitkamp and Manchin are working on an alternative resolution that would give the Assad government 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban and begin turning over its chemical weapons before authorizing U.S. military action.

Two Democratic senators, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, declared their support. However, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who voted for the resolution in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, cautioned Monday that he preferred pursuing diplomatic solutions.

The opposition underscored the uphill battle Obama faces on Capitol Hill to rally around his foreign policy agenda. The president will visit separately with Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans on Tuesday before his prime-time television address.

Graham, who supports the resolution, said he believed it could still pass the Senate: “If the president does a good job tomorrow night, yes.”

THE MILITARY IS EMBARRASSED AND DISMAYED BY OBAMA’S AMATEURISM.

TRAP BLOG

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want

By Robert H. Scales, Published: September 5

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.

The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.

Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
towel obama
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.Our people lament our loneliness.
Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

TEA PARTY GROUPS NATIONWIDE UNITE AGAINST AMERICAN ATTACK ON SYRIA

TEA PARTY GROUPS NATIONWIDE UNITE AGAINST AMERICAN ATTACK ON SYRIA

 667
 1
 411

Republican leaders in Washington, including SpeakerJohn Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Senators McCain (R-AZ)Graham (R-SC), and Corker (R-TN), are supporting President Obama’s call for an American attack on Syria, but Tea Party groups around the country are united in their opposition to such military action.

Tea Party activists appear to be virtually unanimous in their support for the position taken by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said on Tuesday the United States “should not serve as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force.”

Lynn Moss, co-organizer of the Mid-South Tea Party in Memphis, Tennessee, expressed a view held by many Tea Party activists around the country. Moss told Breitbart News on Thursday, “both sides of the conflict in Syria are enemies of the United States. It would be foolish,” she said, “and self-defeating to involve ourselves in this already volatile situation.”

Joanne Jones, vice chairman of the Charleston Tea Party in South Carolina, told Breitbart News Thursday that “conservatives of many stripes are opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria. Particularly in light of today’s account of al Qaeda-linked rebels murdering residents of a Christian village, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince us that the United States would indeed be helping the ‘right’ rebels.”

Bobby Alexander, chairman of the Central Kentucky Tea Party Patriots, told Mother Jones, “[c]onservatives in Kentucky do not want us involved in Syria.” John Kemper of the United Kentucky Tea Party added, “[t]he things I’m seeing and emails I’m getting from folks around the state, they’re not in favor of [an American attack on Syria.]”

Mark Kevin Lloyd, a Tea Party activist in Virginia, told Breitbart News that “the Obama administration and some in the Republican leadership seems overly concerned about the president’s credibility in the eyes of the world. Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner need to understand they each have the same credibility problems in the eyes of the American people.

“How can the president be so sure of the situation in Syria, and so clueless about Benghazi? Too many questions, not nearly enough answers.”

Bruce Carroll, chairman of Carolina Conservatives United, told Breitbart News, “we share the humanitarian concern for the Syrian people who have been killed and injured by conventional weapons and chemical weapons and the millions of refugees that are suffering due to that nation’s two-year civil war.

For Carroll, though, such concerns do not justify American intervention. “We strongly believe the situation in Syria will not improve, and could well deteriorate, due to American military involvement,” he said. “Additionally, we do not believe President Obama has adequately made the case that any national security interests are at stake, a minimum requirement for military actions abroad.”

Mark West, founder of the Chattanooga Tea Party in Tennessee told Breitbart News Thursday: “while Americans have come to expect flawed and disastrous foreign policy decisions from the Obama administration, what is alarming is the foolish part that Republicans are playing in embracing and facilitating Obama’s latest plan to attack Syria.”

According to West, “what should be painfully obvious to any alert American is that Obama’s plan (and now his Republican allies’) to launch “limited” attacks into a highly volatile war zone has the strong likelihood of escalating into a broader and protracted war. And if this occurs, Tennesseans will remember the fateful role that Senator Corker and other Republicans played in endorsing another one of Obama’s helter-skelter foreign policy initiatives.”

Though President Obama maintains he does not need Congressional authorization to conduct military action against Syria, he has nonetheless agreed to ask for Congressional support, without promising that he will be bound by votes taken in the House and Senate on the issue. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 to support President Obama’s call for an American air strike on Syria. Votes in the full Senate as well as in the House are expected to take place soon.

With those important votes looming, members of the Senate and the House are hearing from their constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose such action, according to recent polls. The virtually unanimous sentiment of Tea Party activists appears to be leading public opinion throughout the country in its opposition to American military attacks on Syria.

JUST WHOSE WAR IS THIS?

mercenary

JUST WHOSE WAR IS THIS?

Pat Buchanan decries notion of Americans ‘hired out to do the big-time killing for royals’

Published: 7 hours ago

Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in ’42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama’s war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off – war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a “shot across the bow,” John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday’s New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with 2 million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland’s Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad’s regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that “red line” on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad’s regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our “slam-dunk” case?

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria’s use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.

Child of God listen, Obama is leading us into a trap.

 TRAP BLOG

Child of God listen, Obama is leading us into a trap.

By Mario Murillo

Admit that Assad is a mass murderer who must be stopped.  Admit that the United States has historically been a force for good.  Admit that Obama is right to condemn chemical weapons and that America must step in for humanitarian reasons.  Admit all that but the disturbing truth is that this is a trap that holds the future of our nation in its hand.

Obama should have acted 6 months ago not now.  Because he waited something has happened to the rebels.  Across much of Syria, rebels have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.  American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals. His baffling tendency to waffle, wait and reverse course leaves him open to the accusations that he is a sympathizer with Islamic interests… since, they are the only beneficiary of his actions.

Now the Russians want to present a 100 page report that shows that it was the rebels and not Assad who used chemical weapons.  The fact that we are seriously this considering information from the Russians shows how little credibility Obama has in America.

We have no allies going in.  None of the local nations who have armies will do anything about Assad and yet we are willing to come from half way around the world and deploy an already depleted military.

What if Assad survives our attack?  Then he will boast to the world that he has defeated the once mighty United States.   See China over there in the corner?   They are hoping with all of their might that we are stupid enough to do something that will in fact leave them as the most powerful nation in the world.

Barbara Boxer wants a war?  Doesn’t anyone find this a super nova of irony?  Why would she vote for a resolution that allows for as many as 75,000 of our soldiers to go to Syria?   (Don’t believe  John Kerry’s lie that there will be no boots on the ground)  This is the same spirit that rammed through Obamacare. It was a mindless backroom frenzy of ramming through something just because Obama wants it.

They promised you that Obamacare would lower premiums, advance the economy and let you keep your doctor.   Obamacare has done the precise opposite of everything they promised and its tentacles are strangling our economy more and more each day.

Listen people!  The same people who forced Obamacare on you are now forcing a war on you.   This would be a  war where both sides will shoot at our sons and daughters.  Al Qaeda terrorists who make up at least 20% of the rebel force will attack them.  The army loyal to Assad will attack them.  Obama’s leadership style will not even allow our men and women in uniform to fight a fair fight.

Here is Obamacare the Syrian war version will look:  Billions drained out our already bleeding economy.  Death on a scale we are simply not prepared to bear.  A community organizer leading the charge.   An international mood that will gladly let us go it alone.

The cry is “we have to do something!”  100,000 have been killed in this civil war in 4 years.  Now we have to do something?  Obama bungled the protection of just 4 Americans in Benghazi and he still has not told us where he was while they were being  murdered.    Now he says “trust me” this will be a shot across the bow to degrade Assad’s chemical capabilities.  We will go in and get out”   I am asking all of you, even the most oxygen deprived Obamite: Can’t you see that there is no way we can trust this man at this time to do this insane thing?

Yes, the world community needs to step up and destroy Assad and Al Qaeda.   America cannot go alone this time.   We have no plan, no support and most of all no leader.

Russia says it’s compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack. Many of the rebels are savages.

Russia says it’s compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack.

syriaThis image provided by Shaam News Network, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, purports to show dead bodies after an attack on Ghouta, Syria on Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013. | Uncredited/AP
By Matthew Schofield | McClatchy Foreign Staff

BERLIN — Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.

The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It warned that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the United States invasion of Iraq.

“The Russian report is specific,” the ministry statement said. “It is a scientific and technical document.”

The statement also noted that the attention paid to the Aug. 21 attack had diverted attention from the investigation into the March 19 incident, which was the reason U.N. investigators were in Syria when the more recent attack took place.

“Unfortunately, that investigation still essentially has not begun,” the statement said.

There was no immediate comment from the United States. Independent chemical weapons experts contacted by McClatchy said they had not had time to read the Russian document, which was released as Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to make the Obama administration’s case for a retaliatory strike on Syria as punishment for the attack.

A U.N. team spent four days late last month investigating the Aug. 21 incident. The samples it collected from the site and alleged victims of the attack are currently being examined at OPCW labs in Europe. U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon has urged the United States to delay any strike until after the results of that investigation are known.

Richard Guthrie, formerly project leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, who said he had not seen the original report, said the Russian statement on the makeup of the sarin found outside Aleppo, which the Russians said indicated it was not military grade, might reflect only that “there are a lot of different ways to make sarin.”

He added: “The messy mix described by the Russians might also be the result of an old sarin stock being used. Sarin degrades (the molecules break up) over time and this would explain a dirty mix.”

But he also said that there could be doubts about the Russian conclusion that the rockets that delivered the sarin in the March 19 incident were not likely to have come from Syrian military stocks because of the use of RDX, an explosive that is also known as hexogen and T4.

“Militaries don’t tend to use it because it’s too expensive,” Guthrie said. He added in a later email, however, that it’s not inconceivable that the Syrian military would use RDX “iff the government side was developing a semi-improvised short-range rocket” and “if there happened to be a stock available.”

“While I would agree that it would be unlikely for a traditional, well-planned short-range rocket development programme to use RDX in that role, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, as the Syrian government did not seem to have an earlier short-range rocket programme, it may have been developing rockets with some haste and so using materials that are at hand,” he said.

Another expert, Jean Pascal Zanders, raised a note of caution, questioning a Russian assertion that the sarin mix appeared to be a western World War II vintage.

“The Western Allies were not aware of the nerve agents until after the occupation of Germany,” he wrote in an email. “The USA, for example, struggled with the sarin (despite having some of the German scientists) until the 1950s, when the CW program expanded considerably.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry posted the statement shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin had asked a Russian interviewer what the American reaction would be if evidence showed that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, had been behind a chemical weapons attack.

The report dealt with an incident that occurred March 19 in Khan al Asal, a town outside the city of Aleppo, in which 26 people died and 86 were injured. It was that incident that the U.N. team was originally in Syria to investigate when the Aug. 21 attack took place.

The statement’s summary of the report said that neither the munitions nor the poison gas in the Khan al Asal attack appeared to fit what is possessed by the Syrian government. The statement said Russian investigators studied the site, sent the materials they found to study to OPCW sanctioned laboratories in Europe, and followed agreed upon United Nations investigation standards.

According to the statement, the report said the shell “was not regular Syrian army ammunition but was an artisan-type similar to unguided rocket projectiles produced in the north of Syria by the so-called gang ‘Bashair An-Nasr.’ ”

In addition, Russian investigators determined that the burst charge was RDX, which is “not used in military chemical munitions.”

The Russian analysis found soil and shell samples contained a sarin gas “not synthesized in an industrial environment,” the statement said. The report said the chemical mix did not appear to be a modern version of the deadly agent but was closer to those “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

Published: September 5, 2013 952 Comments

The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”

The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition.

In the more than two years this civil war has carried on, a large part of the Syrian opposition has formed a loose command structure that has found support from several Arab nations, and, to a more limited degree, the West. Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.

Abdul Samad Issa, 37, the rebel commander leading his fighters through the executions of the captured soldiers, illustrates that very risk.

Known in northern Syria as “the Uncle” because two of his deputies are his nephews, Mr. Issa leads a relatively unknown group of fewer than 300 fighters, one of his former aides said. The former aide, who smuggled the video out of Syria, is not being identified for security reasons.

A trader and livestock herder before the war, Mr. Issa formed a fighting group early in the uprising by using his own money to buy weapons and underwrite the fighters’ expenses.

His motivation, his former aide said, was just as the poem he recited said: revenge.

In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the issue of radicalized rebels in an exchange with Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. Mr. Kerry insisted, “There is a real moderate opposition that exists.”

Mr. Kerry said that there were 70,000 to 100,000 “oppositionists.” Of these, he said, some 15 percent to 20 percent were “bad guys” or extremists.

Mr. McCaul responded by saying he had been told in briefings that half of the opposition fighters were extremists.

Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.