Friday, September 13, 2013

Help Kickstart World War III!

Guess Where Those Chemical Weapons Came From, Mr. President (dumb shit)

Canada Free Press ^ | 9-12-13 | Doug Patton

On September 11, 2001, I wrote a column entitled “Now We Know How Israel Feels.”
After all, he [the community organizer in the White House] doesn’t even seem to know where those chemical weapons in Syria came from in the first place. Ironically, at least some of them came from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. They were part of those weapons of mass destruction we never found.
Georges Sada is an Iraqi of Assyrian descent. Born in 1939, he was raised in the Assyrian Church of the East, a Christian sect in predominantly Muslim Iraq. Sada says he later became a born-again Christian and began attending an evangelical church. With such a background, it would be unlikely that Sada would ever rise through the ranks in Saddam Hussein’s military after the dictator’s rise to power in 1968.
But rise he did. Like the Old Testament’s Joseph, who found favor with Pharaoh in Egypt, or Daniel in the land of Nebuchadnezzar, he was elevated to the position of Air Vice-Marshall, second in command of Saddam’s Air Force.
In 2003, Sada sided with the U.S. during the invasion that toppled Saddam’s government. During that conflict, he served as a spokesman for interim leader Ayad Allawi and was appointed National Security Advisor.
In 2006, Sada laid out the case against Saddam Hussein in a book titled “Saddam’s Secrets,” wherein he writes that the Iraqi leader ordered barrels of chemical weapons loaded onto civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats had been removed and flew them into — you guessed it — Syria.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Lawyers May Challenge Obamacare Unilateral Rewrites

albanytribune ^ | September 12, 2013 | By Jim Kouri --

An “Inside the Beltway” group of public-interest attorneys stated this week that they are exploring a legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s rewriting of Obamacare, a/k/a the Affordable Care Act.
According to Judicial Watch, President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the law — without congressional approval — to delay the so-called “employer mandate,” which was scheduled to go in effect on Jan. 1, 2014, for at least a year. The employer mandate stipulates that companies with over 50 full-time employees must provide healthcare plans for their workers that comply with Obamacare standards.
If they do not, they will be forced to pay a penalty “tax” for each employee not receiving an Obama-approved healthcare plan. The temporary waiver allows companies to save millions of dollars.
However, Judicial Watch notes that the President did not rewrite the Affordable Care Act so that Americans would be eligible for a delay in the implementation of the “individual mandate,” which requires nearly all Americans to have Obama-approved health insurance by that same date or pay a tax penalty.
“Many Americans are caught in the middle. They are obligated to have Obama-approved health insurance, but their employers are not obligated to provide it, at least for another year. As a result, these Americans will be forced to purchase Obama-approved health insurance at an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay the tax penalty. Either way, they’re out-of-pocket,” stated officials at Judicial Watch.
In it’s press statement on Monday, Judicial Watch noted: If you are going to have to purchase Obama-approved health insurance through an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay a tax penalty because your employer, which would have been covered by the employer mandate, is dropping or does not provide health insurance, you may have a claim to challenge President Obama’s unilateral rewriting of the law.
“We obviously object to the employer mandate, the individual mandate, and the entire Obamacare law, but we understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama evidently wants to delay at least some of the ill effects of his health care scheme until after the 2014 congressional elections. But politics do not trump the Constitution or the rule of law,” according to Judicial Watch.
If you believe your circumstances are fit Judicial Watch’s criteria for legal action, and would be interested in being “a plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s unconstitutional power grab,” then contact Judicial Watch by using this special email 

Chamberlain, Churchill, Obama and Appeasement

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | September 13, 2013 | Dan Miller

In this short video, Bill Whittle summarizes much history and shows its relevance to America today.
At the end of Mr. Whittle's video, he asks who and where is our Winston Churchill today. He does not provide an answer, but urges us to find him before it's too late.

Video link

Can we? Will we? There are very few of Winston Churchill's caliber today and President Obama even got rid of the Churchill bust that he apparently thought disgraced "His" White House.
LTC Allen West (U.S. Army, ret.) stands out. Perhaps there are others with suitable military backgrounds, knowledge of the dangers of Islamism and with the integrity to say what they mean and to mean what they say. Each is an essential quality, but if one of them is absent the importance of the others is thereby diminished.
If we don't find such a man and elevate him to a position in which he can made a difference, will the United States face something similar to what Chamberlain's vision for peace brought the world? We will be far better off if we don't find out.

Video link

Open Wide!


Never Forget?


Happy Birthday




Big Fan



Powerline ^ | 9/12/2013

President Obama’s speech regarding Syria on Tuesday is best viewed as an attempt at political damage control. Obama hoped to stem the growing (and correct) public perception that he blundered badly at one or more stage of this crisis. His target audience was the only cohort to which he might provide reassurance — those who haven’t been paying close attention.
thought that Obama had pulled off this limited feat, and that, absent a U.S. attack on Syria or the further use of chemical weapons by Assad, Obama would not suffer much additional political damage because of this matter.
Last night on Fox News, however, I happened to see the reaction of a Frank Luntz focus group to Obama’s speech. The comments of the participants showed widespread dissatisfaction with both the speech and Obama’s underlying behavior. The dissatisfaction crossed party lines.
Two caveats may be in order. First, it seemed that the focus group discussed the Syrian situation before viewing Obama’s speech. By doing so, its members became a relatively high-information audience. Thus, their reactions to the speech was not necessarily the reactions of Obama’s target audience — those who haven’t been paying close attention.
Second, a group dynamic seems to have been at work in Luntz’s group. The reaction of Democrats during the speech — as reflected in the moving line on a graph that’s based on the use of dials in real time — was more positive than their post-hoc commentary. Most viewers at home presumably were not subject to a strong group dynamic immediately following the speech.
But a group dynamic may be at work nonetheless. Late night comedians — David Letterman included — are ridiculing Obama over Syria. I imagine they will want to move on in a day or two, but the impression they have left may well persist.
Moreover, the saga is not yet finished. Obama now will negotiate in some fashion with Putin and Assad. The negotiations will produce neither good optics nor good options. In essence Obama either will have to accept a patently phony, easily ridiculed deal or be thrown back into the same seemingly no-win situation (from a political standpoint) that prompted him to grasp at the straw of negotiations.
The media, I assume, will not harp on Syria, but neither will they avert their eyes completely. And the late night comedians will continue to enjoy a target rich environment when it comes to Syria.
Is the Obama presidency “collapsing” — “dissolve[ing] before our eyes” — as Pete Wehner argues? I’m not prepared to say that.
But Obama’s credibility seems to be eroding, at last, in the public’s mind. And may finally be starting to look small, and even a bit ridiculous, to many who have never viewed him that way.