Saturday, September 14, 2013

JUDGE JEANINE AND JOHN BOLTON DISCUSS RUSSIA AND OTHER SUBJECTS..

WH



Proof that our gov would kill us, lie to the world and get away with it

RB

9-11 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History: $300 Billion in Bars

RB

'US Hides Real Debt, In Worse Shape Than Greece'...Economic Collapse is HERE

RB

Welcome to Obamacare: Now Hand Over Your Guns

RB

Putin talks NSA, Syria, Iran, drones in exclusive RT interview (FULL VIDEO)

RB

American EXCEPTIONALISM

RB

Gun Joke at Piers Morgan’s Expense

WH

Watch Comedian’s ‘Deeply Offensive’ Gun Joke at Piers Morgan’s Expense


CNN’s Piers Morgan was still expressing outrage over a new Iowa law that allows the legally blind to obtain handgun permits on Friday. Naturally, to further discuss the law, Morgan invited British comedian and actor Ricky Gervais on his show.
Ultimately, Gervais agreed with Morgan that blind people shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun “because they can’t see what they’re shooting.” However, the comedian jokingly argued that Morgan shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun in America either.
Ricky Gervais Says Piers Morgan Shouldnt Be Allowed to Carry a Gun
Ricky Gervais attends the Novak Djokovic Foundation 2nd Annual Gala, on Tuesday September, 10, 2013, in New York City. Credit: Ben Hider/Invision/AP
Morgan informed Gervais that he, as a U.S. resident, is within his constitutional right to own a firearm.
“But tell me you’re not allowed to carry a gun,” Gervais said with a look of concern on his face.
In dramatic fashion, Morgan explained that he could go to a Walmart in Texas and purchase an AR-15 off the wall, but not a Kinder Egg because it is a choking hazard.
“Dear America,” Gervais said, addressing the American people, “please let Piers buy a Kinder Egg, but don’t let him buy a gun.”
Watch the segment via CNN below:





Shortly before the show aired on CNN, Morgan tweeted that they would be airing the “deeply offensive joke at my expense.”
Good news @ - we kept in the ending to our interview with your deeply offensive joke at my expense. CNN 9pm.
Ricky Gervais Says Piers Morgan Shouldnt Be Allowed to Carry a Gun
@piersmorgan
Piers Morgan

FREE ZONE WEEKEND MOVIE # 2 " BOONDOCK SAINTS II ALL SAINTS DAY "

WH
WEEKEND MOVIE #2
'BOONDOCK SAINTS"


FREE ZONE WEEKEND MOVIE # 1 "RED DAWN:"

WH
"RED DAWN 2012 RELEASE"


WELL ALMOST, YOU KNOW, NOT QUITE ANTHING ?

WH

STEVE FORBES SAY'S

WH

Senator Feinstein to Homeland Security: Stop Enforcing Immigration Law

WH

BY:  Jessica Zuckerman

Jebb Harris/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
Jebb Harris/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
In a letter to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Janet Napolitano, Senator Diane Feinstein (D–CA) has asked that DHS stop enforcing immigration law regarding farm workers:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has wisely used its prosecutorial discretion to defer removal of young people who arrived in the United States without documentation as children.… I respectfully suggest that you adopt a similar policy of exercising prosecutorial discretion to defer enforcement against agricultural employers and workers.
In other words, “We already aren’t enforcing the law for some, so why can’t we keep doing it for others in order to help my state?”
California is the nation’s top producing agricultural state. With approximately 81,000 farms, from Napa to Fresno, the state produces everything from grapes and oranges to figs and avocados. During peak harvest time, the $44 billion industry employs more than 400,000 workers.
For the second year in a row, however, farmers report experiencing shortages in workers. Many factors are likely at play here, including increased economic opportunity in Mexico and the resurgence of the construction industry in the U.S. Senator Feinstein, however, seems to place the blame almost solely on the Obama Administration’s attempts to enforce the law against agricultural workers who are illegal immigrants.
Her solution: stop enforcement. In fact, not only is the Senator calling for the abuse of prosecutorial discretion to benefit agricultural workers in her state, but she was one of the chief authors of portions of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill that would grant permanent amnesty to agricultural workers across the U.S.
Rather than creating a magnet for trapping low-skilled labor in a cycle of poverty through amnesty for illegal immigrants, the U.S. should take steps that work for both laborers and employers by reforming our legal immigration system. One key component would be building an effective temporary worker program to allow those who seek to come here to work to do so legally and fill important niches in the national workforce. This would supply employers with the employees they need to help grow the economy and create more jobs.
The Obama Administration has already abused its “prosecutorial discretion” when it stopped enforcing parts of the immigration laws and implemented by regulation what several previous Congresses chose not to legislate. Instead of following the appeals of special interests and tolerating yet another attempt to undermine U.S. laws, Congress should pursue border security and immigration reform that respects the rule of law and strengthens the economy.
Posted in Capitol Hill, Front Page [slideshow_deploy]


A TRUE STORY ABOUT CARANATION CANNED MILK FROM 65 YEARS AGO

WH
THIS IS A TRUE STORY : 
A little old lady from Wisconsin had worked in and around her family dairy farms since she was old enough to walk, with hours of hard work and little compensation.
When canned Carnation Milk became available in grocery stores in the 1940s, she read an advertisement offering $5,000 for the best slogan.
The producers wanted a rhyme beginning with'Carnation Milk is best of all.'
She thought to herself, I know everything there is to know about milk and dairy farms.  I can do this!  She sent in her entry, and several weeks later a black car pulled up in front of her house.
A large man got out, knocked on her door, and said, "Ma'am, the president of Carnation milk absolutely LOVED your entry.  So much, in fact, that
 we are here to award you $1,000, even though we will not be able to use it for our advertisements!"
He did, however, have one printed up to hang on his office wall.
Here it is:


True story!

WEEKLY THREAT JOURNAL EVERY SATURDAY 9/14

WH

Threat Journal Logo Banner - ALLOW  IMAGES


Sept 14, 2013
Threat Journal is a weekly supplement to the AlertsUSA National Threat
and Incident Notification Service for Mobile Devices
Facebook Twitter

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THIS ISSUE - ALLOW IMAGES




WEEKLY THREAT ROUNDUP
Now Published Each Saturday Afternoon

Gas Pipeline Map of the Middle East - IMAGES

Do You Really Think It's About Chemical Weapons?
Sept 14, 2013

What You Need to Know
Between Sept 7 and Sept 14, 2013, AlertsUSA issued the following
Flash message to subscriber mobile devices:
9/13
Israeli diplomatic facilities and Jewish communities worldwide heighten security measures and alert levels for Yom Kippur (Fri - Sat evening ).

9/11
US diplomatic & military posts worldwide on heightened alert. Multiple bomb threats rptd across US. AlertsUSA monitoring each. Will rpt anything of substance.

9/9
Russia urges Assad to put chemical weapons under international control to avert US strikes, Assad threatens chemical warfare if attacked. Developing.

Despite the appearance of a detente of sorts having been reached in Syria, AlertsUSA cautions listeners that this situation is far from over and the prospect of US military action remains very real.
When one looks deeper than the superficial mainstream narrative it becomes clear that despite the Syrian governments' stated willingness to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and place their chemical weapons stockpile under international control for destruction, the reality is that this is highly unlikely to happen and negotiations between the U.S. and Russia are merely a tactic by all parties to buy time and maneuver.
Disarm During a Civil War? Really?
It is estimated that Syria possess in excess of 1000 tons of chemical agents. This stockpile is reported to be spread between more than 50 locations around the country and does not include manufacturing facilities or the delivery mechanisms.Defense and intelligence officials readily admit that locating and securing this stockpile would take tens of thousands of troops, from some country, and months of effort. Then comes the task of safely destroying the stockpile which itself could take years. This part of the mission would also require specialized industrial facilities which currently do not exist in Syria. And all of this is expected to take place during a bloody civil war which, prior to the claims of chemical weapons use, had already seen more than 150,000 killed, tens of thousands injured and more than two million people displaced? This is highly doubtful
Assad Demands
Next, we consider that late this week, Syrian President Bashir Assad, perhaps emboldened by President Obama's backtracking on red lines, threats and ultimate punt to Congress, laid out his own set of demands before turning over chemical weapons.
These include, but are not limited to the U.S. removing the threat of military force and that they stop arming rebel fighters, as well as that Israel first sign the Chemical Weapons Convention as well as give up its nuclear weapons. Israel has already stated adamantly that they have no intention of ratifying the chemical arms treaty before their hostile neighbors. Further, while Israel does not publicly acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons, it is commonly known that the nation does in fact posses a formidable, very modern nuclear deterrent. Considering the global adversity Israel faces, it is inconceivable they would ever give up the capability.
True Motives
AlertsUSA asks listeners to consider a few realities about the Syrian conflict. Truth be told, U.S. and Russian interests in Syria have very little to do with the use of chemical weapons and the heartstring-pulling news stories of dead babies. Again, prior to the claims of chemical weapons use, their two year long civil war had already claimed the lives of more than 150,000, left tens of thousands injured and more than two million people displaced. Are we really expected to believe that the use of chemical weapons, instead of bullets and bombs, is the real reason for our involvement even after prosecuting two full blown wars over the last decade?
Hardly. There is far more in play.
As previously reported by AlertsUSA, major new oil and gas pipelines being constructed in Syria, the resulting trillions of dollars in energy revenues and the pockets into which those revenues flow, will be decided by the outcome of the Syrian conflict. It will either be the U.S. and it's allies, or Russia, their state run gas company Gazprom and their allies. In this light, it should be no surprise why the Arab Gulf states have offered to fund a U.S. military campaign in Syria.
We can add to this the massive oil and gas fields discovered in 2009 off the coast of Israel. Historically an importer of oil and gas, Israel will soon become an energy exporter and a major player in the world oil and gas market.
As for domestic reasons, the simple undeniable fact is that the U.S. government needs another war in order to justify the ongoing printing of money. If not, the government is immediately broke. The printing must continue in order to fund the extraordinary levels of deficit spending, the servicing of existing debt and the government's purchases of their own treasuries since foreign buyers are rapidly drying up. This is over and above the need to deflect the public's attention from the worsening domestic economy.
For these and many other reasons, another war involving the U.S. is essentially a foregone conclusion. There simply are no other viable solutions. Congress knows this, as does the President. Do not get lost in the daily smoke screen. Keep the broader picture in mind. Chemical weapons and dead babies are merely the excuse being used, regardless of your approval or lack thereof.
The grand danger this time around is that while the Syrian conflict is essentially a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, things could spin out of control rather quickly and result in direct exchanges between the two nuclear powers.
AlertsUSA continues to monitor the situation and will notify subscribers of important breaking developments as events warrant.

AlertsUSA.com
AlertsUSA Service for Mobile Devices - ALLOW IMAGES

* Be One Of The First To Know When The SHTF.
* Get Away Early, Give Your Family Extra Safety.
* In Wide Use By Gov, 1st Responders, Travelers.
* 24/7/365 Monitoring. Only the Bad Stuff. No Hype.
* Issued Hours and Days before the MSM.
* On your Cell Phone, Tablet or Email.
* We Give The Clear Truth, Unlike the MSM.
* Over a Decade in Operation!

We are NOT part of the government.
In fact, they are our customers!

====> CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO <====

ALERT
Travel Security Update

The U.S. Dept. of State is the authoritative federal source for information on the security situation at travel destinations worldwide. With tensions rapidly increasing in most regions, readers planning on international travel, even to such common destinations as Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean Islands are strongly encouraged to do a little research on the security situation prior to departure.
Latest USGOV Travel Warnings
09/06/2013
09/06/2013
09/06/2013
09/05/2013
Important Travel Alerts
08/02/2013


Take Advantage of These Resources
Our social media channels provide a steady steam of important news and resources between issues of Threat Journal with little or no overlap of content. Combined with the AlertsUSA service for instant mobile notification of the really bad developments, you have an unmatched set of tools to keep yourself fully up to speed on the nation's threat environment.
With times getting worse by the day, we urge you to utilize these resources.


We want your feedback! Let us know your thoughts on today's issue.
Visit us at service [at] threatjournal.com
Copyright © 2011-2013 Threat Journal
NOTE: If URLs do not appear as live links in your e-mail program, please cut and paste the full URL into the location or address field of your browser. Disclaimer: Threat Journal and AlertsUSA, Inc., may from time to time recommend products that we've either personally checked out ourselves, or that come from people we know and trust. For doing so, we receive a commission. We will never recommend any product that does not have a 100% money-back satisfaction guarantee. Nothing in this e-mail should be considered personalized Financial Advice. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized Financial Advice. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. Nothing in this e-mail should be considered personalized Health Care Advice. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed health care professionals. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized Health Care Advice. Any Health Care recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your Doctor and licensed Health Care Advisor.

Deuteronomy 8:18 (NAS): But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day.



Man Calls NSA in Attempt to Recover Deleted Email

RB

CARTOONS PRESENTED BY OUR EDITOR RB

WH
image

image

image

image

NEW CARTOONS PAGE UP TOP FOR SEPT 14, 3013

WH

 



MUSLIM - ISLAM 101 THE TRUE STORY ?

WH

  CAN  MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.  And send it on to everyone.  Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. 

Can a good Muslim be a good American?
   This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:   Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia. 
   
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran,2:256)(Koran) 
   
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.  Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.   Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.   Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.   Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )   Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.   Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. 
   
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names. 
   
Therefore, after much study and deliberation... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL  MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both  'good' Muslims and 'good' Americans.  Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.     
The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!  
 
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.  SO  FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. 

THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER  THE U.S.

NEWSWEEK ON OBAMA

WH

NEWSWEEK ON OBAMA........

Note that the first few paragraphs of the piece are not opinion. They are facts which were known in 2008 but ignored by the media and much of the public.
Description:                                    cid:C79FEBFA-5162-4F73-87E2-CCE1A7670825

Better late than never 

Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media.

___________________________

I Too Have Become Disillusioned.


By Matt Patterson (columnist – opinion writer)


Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?


Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz
 continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz
 puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? 
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.
 Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)

And what about his character?
 Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Is Obama A Secret Member Of The Muslim Brotherhood?

WH

September 11, 2013 by John Myers 
Is Obama A Secret Member Of The Muslim Brotherhood?
UPI
It is a travesty that on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 President Barack Obama is poised to use our military to support Syrian rebels, many of whom pledge: “Death to America!”
Obama is prepared to take up arms against the Bashar Assad regime even though half of the anti-government rebels may be avid jihadists, some of whom have been busying themselves with SS-style executions of captured Syrian soldiers and attacks on Syrian Christians.
Last week, The Associated Press reported that “al-Qaida-linked fighters launched an assault on” the “Christian mountain village” of Maaloula, some 40 miles from Damascus. The rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel and were shelling civilians, according to a nun who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Assad’s army, as brutal as it may be, had been protecting the village, whose residents speak a version of Aramaic, an ancient language that Christ is believed to have spoken.
“The stones are shaking,” a nun at Mar Takla told The AP. “We don’t know if the rebels have left or not. Nobody dares go out.”
The attacking of Christians by those supported by Obama is nothing new. It happened in Egypt. The recently overthrown Muslim Brotherhood destroyed churches and persecuted Christians. It is also an outspoken goal of some of the anti-Assad forces, including untold multitudes of al-Qaida affiliates that have entered the war and hail from as far away as Chechnya, the country of origin for the Boston bombers.
These are the same Syrian revolutionaries that Obama is risking world peace to defend with U.S. military might. The question we should ask is: Why? Some people within the Arab world think they know the answer, that Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So tweeted Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar.

The allegation was printed in Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd.
“One could hardly come up with a more explosive allegation about a U.S. president than secret membership in an Islamist group,” wrote The Blaze.
Jonathan Spyer, senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center and an Arabic speaker, talked to The Blaze about Al-Wafd’s allegation.
Spyer said Egyptians are angry at the Obama Administration for not taking a stand against the Muslim Brotherhood. “There is some degree of justification” in the accusation that Obama is pro-Muslim Brotherhood, according to Spyer, because the president has not condemned the group.
The truth is that Obama has come right to the edge of endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood. Last week, in a story titled “‘My Administration is Proud to be Your Partner’, Obama Tells Muslim Brotherhood Pro-Hamas Group,” Frontpage Mag wrote:
Obama taped a statement congratulating ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas Holy Land funding case, on its anniversary, telling the Muslim Brotherhood terror-linked front group, “My administration is proud to be your partner.”
ISNA’s president had met twice with Obama and Valerie Jarrett, making this a high end meeting. And Jarrett had addressed the ISNA convention back in 2009.
“Muslim Americans are integral part of our character and history and we rely on your innovation and entrepreneurship to help keep moving this country forward,” Obama told ISNA members. “Over the last half century, you have upheld the proud legacy of American Muslims’ contributions to our national fabric and this gathering is a testament of that tradition.”
Many people maintain that the ISNA is a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama’s Ridiculous ‘Red Line’ Excuse

Obama could write a book: How to Win Enemies and Influence Jihadists. The President has not improved the situation in the Mideast. And, after all, the region’s continual turmoil stems largely from American policy toward Saudi Arabia and Israel. Obama is simply aggravating the situation by attempting to drag America into another war in which some of those aided may bring terror to the United States in the future.
In May, I quoted the President in Paving the Road to Ruin with Islamists:
“We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.” Those are the words from President Barack Obama. He also warned that if the regime in Syria is using chemical weapons, it will have “crossed a red line” creating a “game changer” for his Administration.
I added:
The reasoning goes in Washington that America must stop Islamic religious and tribal factions from killing each other. Yet three thoughts come to mind:
  1. Does America not have bigger national security problems, namely North Korea and its long-range missiles, which may already carry nuclear warheads?
  2. If Muslims are killing each other, the Muslim extremists may be too busy to kill us.
  3. How in the world can military intervention in the Mideast do anything other than make things worse?
I have not seen a good answer from the Obama Administration on these issues. What I have seen is an Administration with help from neocons in the Republican Party itching to help radical elements in Syria, come whatever may. To have it their way, they are harping on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, allegedly by Assad. The warmongers are now saying it was not the President who set the red line on their use; it was the world.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently stated: “This really is not President Obama’s red line. The president drew a line that anyone should draw with respect to this convention that we have signed up to, and which has been in place since the horrors of World War I.”
Are you serious, Secretary Kerry? For someone who brags about his combat record in Vietnam and is a self-proclaimed “warrior,” you seem to know little about the facts of that war, a war which you later so vehemently opposed.
Some 388,000 tons of napalm were dropped on targets in Vietnam by the Pentagon, resulting in the death of countless women and children. Since Vietnam, the use of napalm has been banned.
Prospect reported:
When the US used firebombs against Saddam’s army in 2003, the Pentagon vociferously denied that it was napalm. It later explained it was another incendiary that did not yet have such a bad reputation.
In 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq, U.S. troops used white phosphorus against Iraqi insurgents. Only after the Pentagon was caught lying about its use did our government admit to it. That incident was documented in the Italian television report “Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre.” The ghastly images include video and photographs of dead Iraqi civilians not so different from those used by the Obama Administration to build its case for war against the Assad regime.
 VIDEO:



Imagine how our government would have reacted had Russia called those incidents the crossing of a red line and lined up an attack fleet off our coast to punish the Bush Administration. It is an absurd notion, mostly because America is strong. However, Syria is weak.
Dispense with these inconvenient truths, say the neocon Republicans and the Obama Democrats. After all, Obama has a war to be waged and just perhaps a greater jihad to inspire.
Today is a sad day, my friends, not only because it is the anniversary of 9/11 but also because, at the very least, our President is a penny wise and a pound stupid when it comes to preventing another 9/11.
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...