Sunday, September 8, 2013

Are Obama’s sarin videos released to CNN propaganda?

Canada Free Press ^ | September 8, 2013 | Judi McLeod

At least celebrated investigative journalist Jake Tapper admits that the Obama videos depicting sarin attacks in Syria, released by CNN 8 p.m, last night could not be verified for authenticity.
“CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of these videos but we’re reporting on them because we have verified the Obama administration is showing them to members of congress as they hope to build a case to support military strikes against the Assad regime.” (CNN, Sept. 7, 2013).
If CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of these videos, then why are they showing them?
Some 13 videos graphically depicting the gruesome Sarin attack in Syria make up the White House compilation video turned over to CNN, even though many of them had been previously posted on YouTube. But Tapper points out that the CNN collection of footage is “significant” because the Intelligence Community has given it a stamp of authenticity.
More significantly, the video images CNN described as “hard-to-stomach” were already shown by the Obama administration to a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.
In other words, a “select group of senators” were shown the videos on Thursday, but the television and Internet world got to release them two days later on Saturday.
The 13 different videos shown to Congress show the Syrian victims of sarin gas on August 21. Senators were told that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.
Make that the same intelligence community that has admitted wholesale spying on American citizens through the NSA database.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Cockroaches are more appealing than Congress!

Coach is Right ^ | 9/8/13 | George Spelvin

Cockroaches and Colonoscopies are rated higher than Congress in the minds of average citizens according to a recent poll. (1) The 113th Congress is regarded little better than the 112th because “82% of Americans already disapprove.” (2)

What’s worse, evidence is surfacing that our elected leaders actually spend about a three hour block of time on our needs, visits or concerns. “Only 3-4 hours a day for the actual work of being a member of Congress” is an insult to Americans! This data is from a power point presentation given to freshman Democrats...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

The Washington Post ^ | Ellen Nakashima

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The first 4 years of Obama, everything bad was blamed on GWB. The NSA spying has been blamed on GWB. The authors of the Patriot Act have said this overwhelming surveillance was not what the Patriot Act intended. But of course, those who wrote the Patriot Act are Republicans so they will ALWAYS be blamed for everything bad in most of the Media. Amazing the WaPo has told the truth. But the Obamabots STILL will not hold their Messssssiah accountable.




5 Immigration LIES from the White House!

Heritage Foundation ^ | September 6, 2013 | Jessica Zuckerman and Ken McIntyre


Congress gets back to its regularly scheduled work on Monday—and there’s plenty of immigration propaganda greeting them.
The falsehoods from the White House just keep on coming, and Catholic leaders have called for clergy to preach in support of the Senate-passed immigration overhaul this Sunday.
On the White House blog, Cecilia Muñoz, assistant to the President and director of the Domestic Policy Council, laid out the Obama Administration’s take on the benefits of “commonsense immigration reform.” The blog, complete with “fact sheets” and the reposting of an animated video, made numerous claims about what the Senate-passed immigration bill (S. 744) would do for U.S. citizens and immigrants alike.

Here is how five of the White House’s latest claims stack up against the facts.

1. CLAIM: The Senate-passed bill would reduce the deficit.
FACT: It would explode the deficit.
While a properly functioning immigration system could indeed help reduce the deficit and grow the economy, the amnesty portion of the Senate bill would be extremely costly for American taxpayers, particularly in the long run. As Heritage senior research fellow Robert Rector has explained:
Amnesty and citizenship would make 11.5 million illegal immigrants eligible for Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and more than 80 different means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps and public housing. The average illegal immigrant is 34 years old and has a 10th-grade education. At that age, education levels would increase very little after amnesty.
Under the Senate-passed amnesty bill, each current illegal immigrant would receive more than $900,000 in government benefits over his lifetime while paying around $300,000 in taxes—a net cost of more than $600,000 to taxpayers. Even if the wages of amnesty recipients were to soar by 25 percent, the long-term costs per recipient would be more than $500,000—costs ultimately borne by the American taxpayer.
2. CLAIM: The Senate-passed bill would increase wages.
FACT: Many workers’ wages would decrease.
The wages of formerly illegal immigrants would likely increase, as Heritage has also projected, under the bill. However, many legally present workers would find their wages lower, as immigration expert George Borjas of Harvard found.
3. CLAIM: The Senate-passed bill would eliminate visa backlogs and reduce wait times.
FACT: It would overwhelm the current immigration system.
The current immigration system is slow and overly complex. Yet rather than address these problems, S. 744 would thrust millions of additional people into the system by granting amnesty to those who are in the U.S. illegally and unrealistically requiring our immigration services to first clear the backlog of those waiting to enter the country legally.
This is certainly a commendable goal. Without real reform to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, however, arbitrary mandates to clear the backlog are only likely to overwhelm the system.
4. CLAIM: The Senate-passed bill would provide a “lengthy but fair” path to earned citizenship.
FACT: Amnesty itself is inherently unfair.
Amnesty is deeply unfair to all those who waded through the complex and convoluted immigration system to come and remain here legally, and the approximately 4.4 million who at this very moment are waiting in line to come.
Indeed, amnesty comes in many forms, but in all of its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future illegal immigration.
5. CLAIM: The Senate-passed bill would improve employment-based visa programs.
FACT: It would make the process worse.
Take the H-1B visa program, which allows employers to hire qualified immigrant workers to fill highly skilled positions. Through this program, employers may draw from a larger hiring pool of qualified applicants to fill vital positions. The idea is to keep jobs in America while also encouraging job creation and employment opportunities.
However, the Senate bill would impose a list of new restrictions on employers of H-1B visa recipients. These include requiring employers to pay higher wages to most H-1B workers than current U.S. workers and other requirements that would create a bureaucratic nightmare for employers and put them in legal jeopardy.
For more FACTS, check out a better path forward.

A Test of GOP Resolve on ObamaCare

Republicans are busy debating what gives them the most "leverage" in their fight to get rid of ObamaCare. One powerful tool, it happens, is an issue that few of them so far have wanted to talk about.
The issue is the White House's recent ObamaCare bailout for members of Congress and their staffs. The GOP has been largely mute on this blatant self-dealing. The party might use what's left of its summer recess to consider just how politically potent this handout is, and what—were they to show a bit of principle—might be earned from opposing it.
The Affordable Care Act states clearly that all members of Congress and their staff must buy their health insurance through an ObamaCare exchange. The law just as clearly does not reconstitute the generous government premium subsidies that members and staff currently receive. Since most members and staffers earn too much to qualify for subsidies in the dreaded ObamaCare exchanges, they were looking at an enormous financial hit come January.
Democrats in particular freaked out, and so the White House in early August conjured out of thin air a bailout for the political elite. The Office of Personnel Management announced—with no legal authority—that Congress could keep receiving its giant subsidies. Oh, and the OPM also declared that each member of Congress also gets to define which of his staff is covered by the law. Chances are many staffers will never have to deal with the exchanges at all.
This deal ought to have led to a wild GOP protest, both on philosophical and legal grounds. Instead, there has been nary a peep of complaint.
[image]Getty Images
The charitable explanation is that the announcement came after Congress had left for recess, giving Republicans little opportunity to unify around a response. The less charitable explanation is that Republicans themselves are under huge pressure from their own staffers to shut up and keep the subsidies flowing.
Some members, like Arkansas's Tim Griffin, went so far as to post on his Facebook page a "myth vs. fact" explanation (read: defense) of OPM's ruling. The responses on his Facebook page were scathing.
Few things infuriate Americans more than special privileges for Washington. The public could not care less that insurance hikes might lead to a Washington "brain drain." (Most would view that as progress.) Americans scrabbling for work, struggling to pay bills and facing soaring insurance premiums are not sympathetic to congressional complaints that the loss of their subsidies is unfair. As word has spread about the White House fix, a bipartisan fury has started to build at town-hall meetings, at rallies, and in letters and phone calls to Congress.
With a little fortitude, the GOP still has the opportunity to be on the right side of public opinion. The White House's unilateral bailout is a tailor-made opportunity for the GOP to highlight, yet again, the administration's unequal application of its flawed health law: waivers for Democratic union buddies, exemptions for big business, and now a special handout to Mr. Obama's political class.
The special deal is also an opportunity to oppose, yet again, the White House's extralegal actions.
Mostly, it is an opportunity to insist that Democrats either fully experience their experiment in social engineering—by living without subsidies within the ObamaCare exchanges they created—or give every other American relief. The reality is that Democrats, far more than Republicans, wanted this fix. They are terrified of their own creation. As leverage goes, there's little to compare with Democratic self-interest.
Imagine forcing Democrats, daily, to justify this self-dealing—a gravy handout reviled equally by independent, Democratic and Republican voters. Imagine the House attaching to a must-pass piece of legislation, say, a provision that requires Congress and staffers and administration officials to live uniformly and subsidy-free in the ObamaCare exchanges, or give a pass to ordinary Americans. Let's see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid handle that one.
A handful of Republicans—Sens. David Vitter and Mike Enzi, and Reps. Ron DeSantis and Shelley Moore Capito—are already calling for action. Any of their legislative approaches might serve as a starting point for a broader effort.
Of course, for Republicans to take this route, they'd have to risk their own self-interest. The GOP is currently sniping over who has more "principles" in the fight against ObamaCare. Those advocating a defund provision for the law this fall seem willing to hold hostage the economy and American households as part of a shutdown fight.
Yet nothing would make a greater statement about principles than a GOP willingness to first hold its own financial self-interest hostage in a fight. If Republicans want to show that they "stand for something," this is it. If they really are willing to do "whatever it takes" to oppose this law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it.
A version of this article appeared August 30, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Test of GOP Resolve on ObamaCare.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

If It Wasn't Syria, It Would Have Been Something Else

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          WWW.NATIONALREVIEW.COM           PRINT
By  Victor Davis Hanson

Why can't the community organizer organize a community?

The American Thinker ^ | 9-7-13 | Silvio Canto, Jr.

As you may recall, much of Senator Obama's message in 2008 was about international coalitions. He mocked President Bush for "going at it alone." I guess that 40-something countries in Iraq was not a big enough coalition. Or, having UK, Canadian and other NATO soldiers take bullets in Afghanistan was not enough either.
Today, President Obama stands alone in the world. He can't even get the UK in Syria. He has found some "moral support" but no one is offering airplanes or missiles.
President Obama is saying that the world drew a "red line." However, no one seems ready to enforce it or fight for the innocent people of Syria.
President Obama is painfully learning that it was easier to build coalitions in the campaign trail than from The Oval Office.
This is the latest about the coalition that won't coalesce:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

5 Signs Sen. Ted Cruz Will Run for President in 2016

ABCNews.com ^ | Sep 7, 2013 10:06am | Elizabeth Hartfield

Sen. Ted Cruz will be a guest on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this Sunday. The Texas senator is a rising star in the Republican Party and thought to be a possible presidential candidate in 2016. With an impressive resume – degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, first Hispanic solicitor general of Texas, youngest solicitor general in the history of the United States – and a particular skill for rhetoric (he’s also a former national debate champion) Cruz is definitely a politician to watch this Sunday and in general.
Here are five signs that this fiery first-term senator is eyeing a 2016 presidential run:
1) Trips 1, 2 and 3 to Iowa. Cruz has been in the Senate for less than a year, but he’s already made two trips to Iowa, with a third one scheduled in October. Lawmakers rarely wind up in Iowa by accident, and they certainly don’t wind up there on three separate occasions in less than 12 months. For the the conservative Cruz, the state known for fried butter and the first electoral event in the nation would be a key piece of his presidential primary puzzle. The state boasts a strong and involved evangelical base to whom Cruz appeals, and retail politicking is a key to success – a strength of the one-time Ivy League debate champion.
. . . .
5) His own language on the subject. The final indicator of Cruz’s intentions for political tea-leaf readers is his own purposely vague rhetoric on the matter. When asked by ABC News‘ Jonathan Karl if he was planning to run in 2016,
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...

Obama Lobbying Congress From Sand Trap!

White House Dossier ^ | 09/07/2013 | Keith Koffler

President Obama today took time out from what the White House is billing as an intensive Syria resolution lobbying campaign to play golf.

He’s playing with a few of his usual group of junior staffers - Mike Brush, Marvin Nicholson, and Joe Paulsen. But just minutes after the press pool reported Obama is on the golf course, the White House made sure to issue the pooler the following bulletin:
This afternoon, the President received an update from his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, on the administration’s latest consultations with members of Congress. The President will make additional calls to members of Congress this weekend.
No laziness going on here!

They’re at the Andrews Air Force Base course, where it’s 79 degrees and sunny. It’s Obama’s 32nd time playing this year and the 143rd time of his presidency.

(Excerpt) Read more at whitehousedossier.com ...

Canadian PM: Keystone quid pro quo, Mr. Obama?

Hot Air ^ | September 7, 2013 | ERIKA JOHNSEN

As I say, though, the Keystone pipeline will save everyone a lot of money and headaches, and the Canadians are understandably way past impatient with the Obama administration’s eternal dithering. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually wrote to President Obama last week, wondering if they mightn’t work out a tit-for-tat of some kind:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama formally proposing “joint action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector,” if that is what’s needed to gain approval of the Keystone XL pipeline through America’s heartland, CBC News has learned.
Sources told CBC News the prime minister is willing to accept targets proposed by the United States for reducing the climate-changing emissions and is prepared to work in concert with Obama to provide whatever political cover he needs to approve the project.
The letter, sent in late August, is a clear signal Canada is prepared to make concessions to get the presidential permit for TransCanada Corp.’s controversial $7-billion pipeline,
But there’s a huge snag. Obama hasn’t said what he wants, or needs, to assuage environmentalists that Keystone XL is in America’s national interest, or to convince congressional Democrats facing re-election next year that it can be approved without sabotaging their campaigns.
And the White House has yet to respond to the letter. And if they do respond, it’ll probably be the same old wishy-washy beating around the bush with which we are by now woefully accustomed. Yes, President Obama is going to need a lot of political cover if he ever approves this thing, but if he can just keep delaying it and pretending that his administration is still deliberating and completely avoid even having to deal with it at all before the 2014 midterms, why wouldn’t they?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

An Open Letter to Barack Obama from a Vietnam Veteran

TEA Party Nation ^ | August 17, 2013 | Darwin Rockantansky

Mr. Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.


Mr. Obama:


While watching the news recently (there is only ONE channel that actually broadcasts “news” so you most likely missed it) there was much discussion about your all too familiar inability to make a decision that would actually benefit this country in addressing the escalating disaster in the Middle East. I felt it my patriotic duty to try to help you sort through this mess that you have single handedly created.

Please keep in mind that I am trying hard not to be overly critical of your performance in dealing with what is fast becoming a second holocaust but am simply trying to help. It would be totally inappropriate for me to be critical of someone who is so uniquely unqualified, ill equipped and massively conflicted as to what to do. So let me offer some professional advice.

Unlike yourself and your academic cronies, anarchist criminals (i.e. Bill Ayers) and your America hating Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright that you surround yourself with, I have actually lived in the Middle East for a number of years (i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.). I was close to the throne when Mr. Jimmy Carter threw the Shah of Iran under the bus and you are following closely in his footsteps but with far more dangerous and far reaching consequences.

Your personal background has been enriched by your early association with the Muslim faith. This is true for myself as well. But our life experiences are drastically different. The vast majority of the American population, especially you and your cronies, have absolutely no understanding of the Muslim culture of the Middle East which is significantly different from the Muslim culture of the Asian sub-continent and the world at large.

It is hard for tech-savvy Americans to envision a culture in which as much as ninety-eight percent (98%) of the population can neither read nor write and whose sole source of anything resembling information is fed to them five times a day by people whose sole motivation is POWER; a trait that would appear to have rubbed off on you.

I experienced the revolution in Iran from the very first anti-Shah demonstration up to and including the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini; I was quite possibly the only American in the airport when the Ayatollah deplaned in Tehran.

As the Iranian revolution picked up momentum, I saw good hearted Muslims who had been educated in this country slowly turn into “supporters” of the Ayatollah; not out of religious fervor but because of FEAR.

People instinctively fear raw violence but they fear political and economic retribution even more so; not unlike a significant portion of our American society does since your regime came into power.

Your regime has consistently backed the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies; both overtly with billions of tax payer dollars given in the name of “humanitarian aid” and many say covertly through the redirection of arms and ammunition out of Iraq. And as a result, the entire Middle East is in flames and a second holocaust is in progress. America cannot be far behind - which I am reasonably sure brings much joy to you and your cronies.

As you stand there on the golf course vacillating as to what to do, let me try to explain the situation in the simplest possible terms: The Muslim Brotherhood are the BAD GUYS and everyone else COULD be our friends.

There has been much said about the “Democratically Elected Government” that was set aside by the Egyptian military. Democratically Elected? CRAP!! There can be no “free elections” when members of the Muslim Brotherhood man the polls and voter intimidation and massive voter fraud are the rule of the day. There was a time when Klansmen (KKKK) hovering about election polls intimidating voters was considered illegal but now under your regime it is evidently just fine for the Black Panthers to do the same thing so perhaps you see nothing amiss when the Muslim Brotherhood follows your lead.

What we are facing is an irreconcilable difference in fundamental religious philosophy. In the simplest of terms, which may yet be a stretch for your massive lack of intellect, let me condense the opposing views:

Jesus said: “Follow Me and I will make you fishers of men.”

Mohamed said: “Do as I say or I will butcher you and your whole damned family.”

I realize that you may be confused about this term “Democratic” given that you belong to a “Democratic” party that is in actuality simply the American Communist / Socialist Party. Ever since the creation of the “German Democratic Republic” (aka: East Germany) in 1949 the Communist/Socialists have been fond of wrapping themselves in “Democratic” labels.

But there is a much larger issue here that cannot be cleverly obfuscated via skilled word-smithing; a uniquely American issue: FREEDOM!

I realize that you and your cronies find the concept of “freedom of the individual” most bothersome as is evidenced by [your] massive effort to stamp it out. But it is “freedom of the individual” that united a highly disparate and geographically dispersed people to stand together and “....with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, (we) mutually pledge to each other (our) their Lives, (our) their Fortunes and (our) their sacred Honor.”

The need for Freedom burns deep in the heart of every human on the face of the earth. Your free cell phones, food stamps, and Section Eight housing may entice your people back onto the plantation in abject slavery but history has shown that even the best kept slaves in our country’s past willingly risked their lives to escape their shackles.

Support for the Muslim Brotherhood in any manner should be considered a crime against humanity.

Your policy with respect to the Middle East should be quite obvious: Hunt down the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and remove them from the face of the earth.

Your legacy is being created daily and should you not change your course your legacy will without a doubt rival that of Adolph Hitler for the pain and suffering you have delivered to freedom loving people all over the world; especially to We The People of this once free nation.

Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel

The Nation ^ | September 5, 2013 | Bob Dreyfuss

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenation.com ...

For the first time in a decade, immigration flow to South Texas greater than Arizona

NBC Latino ^ | 09/07/2013 | Monica Ortiz Uribe

A costly game of cat and mouse unfolds nightly along the banks of the Rio Grande in South Texas. The number of immigrants crossing illegally there has doubled in the last four years, making it the busiest section along the Southwest border.
As night fell outside Mission, Texas in late August the Rio Grande looked deceivingly peaceful under the glimmer of a full moon.
Suddenly through a pair of night vision goggles, a Border Patrol agent spotted movement. He picked up his radio. “Ey, can you tell what’s on the raft,” he said.
On the river ahead of him a mother and her two infant boys floated across on a raft. She scampered onto U.S. soil, but her taste of success was brief. She was apprehended and ended up in the back seat of a Border Patrol suburban.
The woman had traveled from Guatemala. She told the Border Patrol she was on her way to reunite with her husband in the United States. Her fate will now be a detention center and likely deportation.
This year, Border Patrol has detained nearly 200,000 people from Del Rio to Brownsville. While apprehensions across the southern border are at record lows, South Texas is the one spot where the numbers are rising again. “We could apprehend anywhere between 100 and 200 a shift,” said Mark Foster, a Border Patrol supervisor. “On the weekend its very hard to get all the incursions dealt with, with the manpower that we have.”
In response to the increased traffic the Border Patrol is shifting more manpower and resources, like night vision technology and mobile towers, to South Texas. By the end of this year the Rio Grande Valley Sector expects to have 600 more agents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbclatino.com ...

New Jersey man makes mailbox in form of giant revolver!

The Express Times ^ | September 5, 2013 | Jim Deegan

To say Roger Buchko supports gun rights would be an understatement. Just ask his letter carrier.
Buchko, 49, of Lopatcong Township, made a giant mailbox in the shape of a .44 Magnum revolver that has been drawing attention and turning heads in his northwestern New Jersey community.

Photo Credit: Sue BeyerEver since Buchko installed the mailbox two weeks ago, he's been overwhelmed by the support he's received.
"At least 500 people have taken pictures of it already," said Buchko, a semi-retired cabinetmaker. "They love it. I haven't had one hater yet, except one night somebody threw eggs on it.
"I'm lucky. I expected everybody was going to hate me but turns out everybody loves me."
Buchko got the idea while surfing the Internet one day.
"I just came across a couple on the Internet, and I said, 'I could build one of them but much better,'" he said in an interview today. I'm like a crazy artist. I get an idea in my head and just roll with it."
Buchko said he worked a couple of hours per day for three or four months on the replica gun. He modeled it after his own Smith & Wesson, he said.
He did it, he said, not to make a statement about gun ownership or to anger anyone with philosophical differences. He said he respects different viewpoints.
"I put it out there to try to get some work and because I needed a new mailbox," he said.
A friend, excavator Troy Vansyckle, helped build the mailbox, which is made of wood and PVC pipe. It weighs several hundred pounds and is mounted on a 1,200-pound steel plate for which Buchko enlisted Vansyckle's backhoe to install.
The gun's ammunition cylinder, which revolves on ball bearings, is made of wood, as is the grip. The barrel is PVC piping. Bills, letters and junk mail all get deposited into the muzzle. Buchko says his mail carrier loves it.
He checked with postal officials before placing the piece at roadside.
"I don't see a problem with it," saidPhillipsburg Postmaster Melody Baylis. "As long as it accommodates the size of the mail he receives, it's not a problem."
Baylis, postmaster in the Warren County town the past two years, said she was amazed by Buchko's craftsmanship.
The mailbox, she said, isn't any different in principle than other mailboxes shaped like fish, cartoon characters or other nontraditional receptacles.
"I think it's very innovative. I'm 100 percent supportive," she said.
Buchko was pleased with the outcome.
"It's a monument," he said.
[I linked above directly to the photographers photoarchive for article... I would hotlink them, but this is not fun posting to FR on my phone. Please check out his work... it's honestly very impressive. OH! There is a poll at the link for the article... last I saw it was 75% for 25% against. 

The Eternal Hypocrisy of the Leftist Mind

http://www.powerlineblog.com ^ | september 7, 2013 | Steven Hayward

Remember how the left’s concern with the slightest signs of sexual harassment disappeared when it threatened to ensnare Bill Clinton? (That episode also had the benefit of causing liberals to see the defects of the independent counsel statute; while railing against Ken Starr, they failed to perceive his great Machiavellian deed.)

Well, the left is suddenly revealing their anti-war principles really only apply to Republican presidents.

Of course, what is revealed is that their anti-war principles are closely connected to their essential cowardice. Ed Asner has admitted as much, saying they don’t want to criticize Obama on Syria because of Obama’s race. From the Hollywood Reporter: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” Give that man a Kennedy Profile in Courage Award (heh).

David Sirota wonders, “What Ever Happened to the Anti-War Movement?”

(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER GOES TO WAR [Ann Coulter skewers the Clown]

Ann Coulter ^ | 9/4/13 | Ann Coulter

Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us.
With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor -- amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.
Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.
No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.
It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...

Saving credibility of the U.S. is no reason to go to war!

Ottawa CItizen ^ | Sept 7, 2013 | David Lorge Parnas

The best reason for the United States to attack Syria was reported by columnist William Marsden. He wrote, "If he (Obama) takes no action, his foreign policy will be in tatters and his credibility shot."

Unfortunately, everyone should see that saving one's reputation is not sufficient grounds for killing people or violating international law. Attacking Syria may actually make the U.S. reputation worse.
....
Our goal should not be saving anyone's reputation; it should be saving lives. The way to do that is to stop delivery of arms by any country to any party in Syria. I hope that Obama will discuss such action with Putin. If you want to stop a fire, you don't add fuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at ottawacitizen.com ...

GOP leaders should let Allah sort out Syria's Islamic civil war!

Fox News ^ | Sept 3, 2013 | Daniel Horowitz

As bankrupt as elected Republican leadership is in Washington vis-à-vis domestic policy, they are completely clueless as it relates to foreign policy.
While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime, Obama is attempting to spend American treasure helping one nefarious side of an Islamic civil war in Syria – one which involves Iran-allied supporters of Hezbollah (Assad regime) vs. predominantly Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.
Astoundingly, most GOP leaders are either siding with Obama or are totally insouciant to this reckless fomenting of an Islamic insurrection. Instead of fighting ObamaCare, they are allowing Obama to distract from the upheaval at home by focusing on this inane escapade in Syria.
Some conservatives are concerned about evincing an image of weakness to our enemies by not following through with the ‘red line’ threat. Undoubtedly, they are correct about Obama’s self-contradictory policy in a wrongheaded intervention. But it is still a wrongheaded intervention, and the fact that he made the threat to begin with should not engender a need to fix that bad policy with another bad policy decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

How Much Will a War With Syria Cost?

The Motley Fool ^ | September 7, 2013 | By Katie Spence

... each Tomahawk cruise missile likely to be fired on Syria costs an estimated $1.5 million each to replace. That's great news for Raytheon (NYSE: RTN ) , which builds the missile, but not for the Navy's budget. Plus, if the U.S. fires missiles, that'll add an additional $30 million per week for as long as the Navy's Nimitz and Truman are engaged in combat.

Those costs may not seem like much when you factor in overall defense spending, but thanks to the nature of sequestration, the Navy, as well as the rest of the military, is hurting.
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
Why are we spending $1.5 million per missile "firing a shot across the bow" that will do nothing to stop the chemical attacks, and will only give Assad a propaganda edge?
Obama could go on a weekend vacation for this amount.
 

'Human dolphin' flies through waves with jetpack!

The Telegraph ^ | 06 Sep 2013 | Sam Marsden

A "human dolphin" has perfected a technique for plunging in and out of the waves using a water-powered jetpack.
Ross Ceaton, 30, is the only person in the UK to own a £15,000 FlyBoard aquatic jetpack, which can propel users up to 30ft in the air.
As well as mimicking the agility of dolphins leaping through the water, he can also fly through the air like the fictional superhero Ironman.
Mr Ceaton, who runs AquaticJetpacks in Poole, Dorset, hopes that FlyBoarding could become as popular as other adrenaline-charged watersports such as jetskiing and kitesurfing.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

TOPICS: HobbiesPets/AnimalsWeird Stuff
KEYWORDS:

Isn't scared of shit!

Sinking

Who's this clown?

Balls

Deplomacy

Boom, Boom. Boom