Our Weasel of the Week!! 03.19.15

Every Tuesday, the Council nominates some of the slimiest, most despicable characters in public life for some deed of evil, cowardice or corruption they’ve performed. Then we vote to single out one particular Weasel for special mention, to whom we award the statuette of shame, our special, 100% plastic Golden Weasel. This week’s nominees were all truly slime-worthy and disgusting,but in the end the unanimous winner was….the envelope please..

The Regime’s Own Komedy King, ‘Director Of National Intelligence’ James Clapper!!

JoshuaPundit: Yes, good ol’ Jim Clapper, Obama’s ‘intelligence’ specialist, who referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as ‘a secular organization’ without even cracking a smile when testifying before congress. Yes, the laugh was in in his delivery – pompous, all knowing and put upon that he should even be questioned on such things by such mere peasants.

Since then, Jim Clapper has been good for a lot of laughs as he reliably shills for Obama’s failed foreign policy.

His latest caper? In his 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment for congress he totally delisted Iran as a state supporter of terrorism and Iran’s proxy Hezbollah as a terrorist group. And why not? They’re our allies now, President Obama says so, and so does James Clapper. So it must be true.

Yeah, they seem like a friendly bunch, don’t they? What’s wrong with them having nukes?

Hey, Jim Clapper, just like his boss in the Oval Office doesn’t see anything wrong with it? Why should we? And Hezbollah? Sure, before 9/11 they held the record for the terrorist group murdering the most Americans,but that was then and this is now.

Y’know, Clapper and a number of his buddies throughout out the Obama Administration like Robert Malley, Dalia Megahead, Huma Abedin, Mohamed Elibiary, Rashad Hussain, Salam al-Marayati and a number of others remind me a lot of how commies,their sympathizers and Soviet spies like Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and lots of others infiltrated the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. Most of them weren’t high profile..they functioned behind the scenes as trusted behind the scenes advisers, apparatchniks and bureaucrats at various choke points where they could see and hear a lot and/or had the ear of people whom directly affected policy. They were the ultimate weasels of the Cold War, and between them they gave Stalin the atomic bomb, convinced Roosevelt to trust Stalin when he said he’d pull the Red Army out of Europe after the war, and duped Truman into allowing the Soviets to keep eastern Europe enslaved and bring the USSR into the UN.

I have a feeling that when the history of these times is written, some of the names I mentioned, perhaps even Mr. Clapper’s might just be mentioned as he ultimate weasels of their own time.So I think it’s only appropriate and fitting that Mr. Clapper receive this well earned Golden weasel…both for the weaselly deeds he’s already done and the one’s he’ll undoubtedly do in the future. Step up to the stage, James Clapper, and here’s your weasel!

Oh, the red stuff on the sides? Well, we had that done especially for you, kind of a symbolic tribute. Looks almost like blood, doesn’t it?

Well, there it is!

Check back next Tuesday to see who next week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week are!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum, and remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Forum: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

The Independent Sentinel : It’s the government getting its tentacles into one more thing.

It gives companies immunity when they share our data. We no longer have privacy protections from the government in the name of security. The government will freely share our information among government agencies.

The government claims the information-sharing system would not put privacy at risk as the information disclosed will principally concern the method of attack on computer data and systems, rather than its content.

Who trusts them?

Why do they need these rules when they can already do it? Is it just a way of bullying companies into doing it more readily? They have been resistant.

According to the Guardian, “it would criminalize the overseas sale of stolen US financial information like credit card and bank account numbers, would expand federal law enforcement authority to deter the sale of spyware used to stalk or commit ID theft, and would give courts the authority to shut down botnets engaged in distributed denial of service attacks and other criminal activity.”

Meanwhile, our government won’t allow illegal immigrants to be charged or held if they steal IDs.

There will be more consumer notifications pushed on companies who become aware of breaches but they already notify consumers. It’s more regulation and more expense that will be passed down to consumers.

The bill is vague and will be misinterpreted.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: If we have learned anything with this administration, what they say and what we get are diametrically opposed. The Affordable Care Act has proven unaffordable for many. President Obama wants the FCC to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and extend that regulation to mobile broadband service as well. Net neutrality will not lead to a fairer, more open and free internet as the president promises. As Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated: “Net neutrality puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.” I believe that about sums it up.

The internet has been working very well in a free market system. If we want to keep an affordable, free, and open internet, we must keep government out of it.

The Glittering Eye : I’m not sure how to answer the question. Perhaps the best way would be for me to state what I’m in favor of. First, a brief preface.

The Internet grew from developments by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for a computer network that could survive nuclear war. The Internet has succeeded because a) it was in the public domain, b) ICANN (the ultimate registrar of domain names) has been seen as apolitical and fair, c) it has largely been free of regulation and taxes, and d) the cost of entry was relatively low. Later that development was augmented by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the University of Illinois’s computer science department.

Previous attempts at large scale computer networks whether public (in France) or private (by many companies) had failed. There is no reason to believe that any proprietary network would have succeeded.

I am unsympathetic to the complaints of the mega-service providers. In large part they enjoy the position of power they hold because of their government-granted monopolies. They have expended very little capital on research and development in their Internet service enterprises and have enjoyed substantial revenues with things as they are. That other companies, e.g. Google, Netflix, are making profits out of the Internet as it is is merely sour grapes on the part of the ISPs. If they demand more money from their investments on network infrastructure, minor relative to the revenues they’ve derived from them, they should meter bandwidth at the customer level and leave providers alone.

Consequently, I believe in network neutrality, that the Internet should be largely free of sales taxes, that it should remain predominantly uncensored, and that Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and so on should be regulated by the FCC. In particular I think that any business that has gained its present position as the result of government-granted monopoly should be kept out of the content business. I’m not sure where that puts me relative to the Obama Administration but that’s what I think.

JoshuaPundit: What government can regulate, it can control. And what it can control, it can tax. Ultimately, screwing yet more tax revenues out of the American people is a lot of what this is all about,and the fact that this president wants the FCC to impose these new proposed rules without congressional oversight while it has a  majority of his appointees who took their seats while he had a congressional majority tells me all I need to know.

The other major part of what this is about is censorship and control of content. This president is also not only hyper-partisan but a long time appeaser of Islamists, and he has already said that he is going to ‘fight the media ‘  and the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles,using the lame excuse that he is suddenly concerned about the welfare of the same troops overseas whose lives he has endangered with ridiculous Rules of Engagement and his illegal wars. Rest assured that very selective censorship in a great many areas will be the order of the day if he gets his way.

Ask Marion: On Thursday 01.15.15 the White House said legislation was not necessary to settle the “net neutrality” rules issue because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them. And President Obama’s rallying cry this past week has been… ‘Everyone deserves free Internet’. Beware of politicians bearing free gifts!!!

Quick Background:

What actually is at immediate stake here is what rules should govern how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks to ensure they treat all Internet content fairly. At the heart of the latest phase in the debate over the rules is what legal authority should guide those regulations.

Obama is urging the FCC to regulate ISPs more strictly under a section of communications law known as Title II, treating them more like public utilities. The broadband companies adamantly oppose this plan, saying the added regulatory burden would reduce investment and stifle innovation in their industry.

The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House commerce committees, John Thune and Fred Upton, have been working to strike a legislative deal with Democrats that would adopt some of the same net neutrality principles but without resorting to Title II.

Late on Wednesday, Thune released a list of the net neutrality principles he would pursue, which closely echoed Obama’s, such as bans on blocking or throttling of websites.

While some Republicans have also sought a delay in the FCC’s vote to establish new net neutrality rules, planned for February 26th, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated no interest in a change or delay.

“Chairman Wheeler believes it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to protect consumers, innovation and competition online,” FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said in a statement.

Evoking net-neutrality and expanding the scope and power the FCC has been on the Obama administrations’ radar since day one and now that they are in their final two years, the administration has entered their complete lawless phase. So controlling communication is high on their agenda. It is all about control and these changes are just the tip of the iceberg. Censorship; monitoring newsrooms; and taking control of every aspect of communication… newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, news outlets, textbooks, movies, even art, plus the services that support them have been on Obama’s list since 2009, when both minority groups and Democrats questioned net neutrality.

The Republicans in Congress are in favor of a net neutrality law as long as the federal government doesn’t handle it, so are trying to drum up support for a bill that would counter the FCC’s upcoming new rules. But after the Obama administration’s comments getting Democrats on board could be difficult.

The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:

The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:

No blocking of lawful services on a network
No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
No traffic throttling — except for “reasonable network management,” it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
No paid prioritization
Transparency requirements for ISPs

Much of the language for this bill was lifted directly from the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year?!? It includes less-than-ideal exceptions for network management and “specialized services” like VoIP, but it settles a major point of contention in Wheeler’s proposal by banning paid prioritization, which would have allowed ISPs to offer faster service for companies that paid more. In some ways, it’s exactly what net neutrality supporters have been asking for, although the advocacy group Public Knowledge has expressed concerns about how strong its protections would be in practice.

A crucial point is that the bill adds all of this to Title I of the Communications Act, classifying broadband as an “information service.” Title I services are regulated more lightly than Title II “common carriers” like telephone companies. The last FCC net neutrality framework plan was struck down because it came too close to making rules that only Title II allows:

“In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II,” said a White House official. “However, we always remain open to working with anyone who shares the president’s goal of fully preserving a free and open internet now and into the future.”

Of course in reality, preserving a free and open Internet is the opposite of the this administration’s goal and we all should have learned by know that anything regulated and run by the government makes it and us less free. In fact, in March of 2014 ICANN and the US government announced their intention to relinquish control of the Internet to the UN by 2015, so there is much more to this plan than just a few rule changes! Anything turned over to the United Nations brings us just us one step closer to globalization and the ruling elite’s goal of a New World Order which will definitely make us all less free.

Everyone deserves free Internet. Sounds good until you remember… you can’t have both freedom of speech and big government that controls the media… It is a choice!! And it not only won’t be free, it will more expensive for everyone. We (you) will all be paying for everyone’s Internet service plus the government bureaucracy that will run it.

Pay attention America, if government controls the media… TV, radio, the Internet… your free speech stops and the attempt to take over media and your information will be even easier and more blatant than it already is…

My feeling, like always, is less government involvement is always best!

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results - 01-09-15

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all.” – Abba Eban

““The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. - Eric Hoffer

“We must take positions. Our weakness in the West is born of the fact of so-called ‘objectivity.’ Objectivity does not exist – it cannot exist!… The word is a hypocrisy which is sustained by the lie that the truth stays in the middle. No, sir: Sometimes truth stays on one side only.”
- Orianna Fallacci

This week’s winning essay,Joshuapundit’s - Who’s ‘Responsible?’ came about when I read an astounding statement from the mouth of European Union foreign affairs head Federica Mogherini. Here’s a slice:

Sometimes, a public figure makes a statement that simply defies the imagination in its blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of reality.

Those of you who have been following events in the region know that the Third Intifada against Israel is well underway, and that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are doing their best to incite violence. Against this background, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority AKA Hamas/Fatah recently went to the UN Security Council in an attempt to get a resolution declaring a Palestinian State along the pre ’67 lines that would have called for forcing Israel back to indefensible borders, re-dividing Jerusalem and barring Jews from their Holy sites, ethnically cleansing 500,000 Jews, freeing all terrorists currently in captivity in Israeli jails and allowing any of the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians to return to whatever they claim their homes were in Israel.

The resolution failed by one vote, but Abbas has promised to re-introduce it now that three pro-Israel nation’s terms on the Security Council have finished and three anti-Israel countries terms on the Security Council started in 2015. And Abbas is also attempted to join the International Criminal Court, saying that if he’s successful he will attempt to prosecute Israel there for war crimes.

Aside from violating both the Oslo Accords and The Road Map, this is nothing less than a hostile entity making a declaration of war against Israel.

In retaliation, Israel decided to take the measure of freezing $127 million in tax monies it gathered for Hamas/Fatah, and is considering other measures as well.

The EU immediately condemned this, and their reaction is worth looking at.

European Union foreign affairs head Federica Mogherini said in a statement today that even this moderate pushback “runs counter to Israel’s obligations.”

“An effective Palestinian Authority, committed to non-violence and a peaceful resolution of the conflict, is a key element for a two-state solution,” Mogherini said.

Mogherini said that “recent steps taken … could aggravate the already tense situation on the ground and bring them further away from a negotiated solution.”

“Both sides should refrain from taking actions which could raise obstacles to the rapid return to the negotiations,” she added.

She also threatened that the EU’s financing of ‘Palestine’ could be endangered by Israel’s withholding the money.

You have to wonder what planet the EU thinks it lives on.

Israel’s ‘responsibilities?’ What about the Palestinian Authority?

In exchange for being gifted sovereignty by Israel in the Oslo Accords over some land it otherwise had no claim to, The Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians agreed to do three things…renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and end anti-semitic incitement in its mosques schools and media. Those same three requirements were also part of the Road Map.

Not one of them has ever been adhered to, not by Arafat, not by Mahmoud Abbas and certainly not by Hamas.

While the PLO charter tepidly recognizes Israel, neither the Fatah charter or the Hamas charters do. Support for terrorism against Israeli civilians is a given, and not merely tolerated but rewarded. In the twenty years since Oslo, not a single person has ever been arrested by the PA security forces for killing a Jew. Financing of terrorist activity by the PA and Hamas is a long documented fact. Terrorist killers convicted of some of the most heinous murders by Israeli courts are called ‘holy martyrs’ by Abbas and receive a nice salary from the PA courtesy of Eu and American taxpayers, and these ‘martyrs’ are held up as heroes and role models to Palestinian society. They’re glorified in its media, lionized in its mosques and have public buildings named after them.

Mahmoud Abbas’s Moscow University treatise claiming that the Holocaust never happened and that the few Jews that were killed were the result of ‘Zionists’ collaborating with the Nazis is a required text in the PA’s school curriculum.

And the PA itself is now allied in a unity government with the genocidal Hamas.For that matter, the PLO has already said that the Oslo Accords no longer apply to them.

And when Mogherini talks about a Palestinian Authority, committed to non-violence and a peaceful resolution of the conflict, does she even recognize the years of sustained and constant rejectionism and unwillingness to negotiate anything by Arafat,Abbas and the PA as the main contributor to the current impasse?

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was the one and only Rush Limbaugh with The GOP Leadership’s Attitude Toward Its Own Base Is Unprecedented submitted by Ask Marion. This is a transcript of Limbaugh’s comments on the air during his hugely popular radio show and he takes on the contradiction of a large part of the Republican leadership showing outright contempt for the voters that just gave them one of the largest GOP congressional majorities in history with his usual clarity and logic. Definitely read it.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Ask Marion was unable to vote, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty :

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 1/3 votes! – Joshuapundit - Who’s ‘Responsibility?’
• Second place with 2 votes –The Noisy Room – John McCain’s Progressive Hand Is Behind The Purge Of Tea Party Detractors From The Arizona GOP
• Third place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Bookworm Room – The New York Times ignores the reasons why Swedes might be turning against immigrants
• Third place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – VA Right! - Barack Obama – The President of No!
• Fourth place with 1 vote – Ask Marion – Time For GOP Leadership
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Nice Deb – Lefty Losers Spam Twitter With Lie About Officer Liu’s Widow
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Simply Jews – Jonathan Freedland and the liberal Zionists’ support: thanks but no thanks
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Razor – What I learned In 2014
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Right Planet – British Lawmaker: Hitler Was a Socialist
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Glittering Eye - The Problem With Student Debt
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Independent Sentinel – Cuomo’s Captious New Law: No More Selfies With Tigers and Lion

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 1/3 votes! –Rush Limbaugh - The GOP Leadership’s Attitude Toward Its Own Base Is Unprecedented submitted by Ask Marion
• Second place with 2 votes – Victor Davis Hanson – Autopilot nation submitted by Joshuapundit
• Third place *t* with 1 2/3 votes –Roger L. Simon/PJ Media – Egypt’s al-Sisi Makes Extraordinary Speech on Islam submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Third place *t* with 1 2/3 votes –Sultan Knish – December 31st, 1912 submitted by The Independent Sentinel
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Klari Goldman Bates/ Times Of Israel – A Tango With Hypocrisy submitted by Simply Jews
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote – Peter Pomerantsev/Politico – Inside Putin’s Information War submitted by The Razor
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – USNI News – Navy Wants Rail Guns to Fight Ballistic and Supersonic Missiles Says RFI submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes  -Angry White Dude – Trust the Republicans They Said! This Time Will Be Different, They Said!submitted by VA Right!
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 votes – Powerline – Liberals Can’t Argue, They Can Only Bully [Updated] submitted by The Watcher
• Sixth place with 1/3 vote – Weasel Zippers - Today #BlackLivesMatters Imploded submitted by Nice Deb

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

IRS’s Lerner Bombshell, Treasury Department Secretly Drafted New Rules To Restrict Activity of Conservative Groups… Yet Pres Obama Says No Smidgen of Corruption

Remember Lois Lerner?

Marion Algier - AskMarion:

The Daily Caller: The Obama administration’s Treasury Department and former IRS official Lois Lerner conspired to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations to restrict the activity of conservative groups in a way that would not be disclosed publicly, according to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

The Treasury Department and Lerner started devising the new rules “off-plan,” meaning that their plans would not be published on the public schedule. They planned the new rules in 2012, while the IRS targeting of conservative groups was in full swing, and not after the scandal broke in order to clarify regulations as the administration has suggested.

The rules place would place much more stringent controls on what would be considered political activity by the IRS, effectively limiting the standard practices of a wide array of non-profit groups.

“Don’t know who in your organizations is keeping tabs on c4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them (off -plan) in 2013, I’ve got my radar up and this seemed interesting…,” Treasury official Ruth Madrigal wrote in a June 14, 2012 email to Lerner and others obtained by Ways and Means and provided to The Daily Caller.

Ways and Means chairman Rep. Dave Camp blasted the off-the-record plan during a hearing Wednesday with IRS commissioner John Koskinen, and called for the administration’s newly proposed 501(c)(4) rules to be halted until criminal investigations into the IRS targeting scandal are complete.

“If Treasury and the IRS fabricated the rationale for a rule change it would tend to raise questions about the integrity of the rule-making process,” Camp said.

“I want to be perfectly clear – this committee will fight any and all efforts to restrict the rights of groups to organize, speak out and educate the public, just as unions are allowed to do so.  We will get to the bottom of this, and I expect the IRS to produce – quickly – the outstanding documents the committee has requested,” Camp said.

“I believe the IRS has a long way to go in restoring its credibility.  But, you can take a first step by complying with this committee’s request and stopping all action against 501(c)(4) groups until the appropriate investigations are completed.”

The new rules define more previously acceptable activities by nonprofit groups as prohibited “candidate-related political activity.” Communications and activities including voter registration drives and publishing voter guides, among others, are now classified as political activity. Grants and donations that 501(c)(4)’s give to other nonprofits are now subject to new record-keeping and increased scrutiny to prevent the money’s use for broadly-defined political activity.

The rules were “drafted in a manner, in my view, to shut down tea party groups” Rep. Camp said earlier this week.

New IRS commissioner Koskinen said that the rules should “put to rest all of the issues surrounding applications for tax-exempt status.”

But Madrigal’s email to Lerner proves that the regulations were being developed long before the IRS needed to publicly put anything “to rest.”

At least 292 conservative groups were subjected to unfair targeting between 2010 and 2012, against six liberal groups that were allegedly given similar treatment.

“They are both over-broad and under-inclusive,” said Foley & Lardner LLP partner Cleta Mitchell on the new rules.

“They’ve taken everything that 501(c)(4) organizations do in the normal course of business and proposed to convert that all to candidate-related activity, even if a candidate is never mentioned.”

Mitchell said that the rules are being “rushed through” for political purposes.

“The objective is to get the rules in place before the 2014 election,” Mitchell said.

Hmmmm… Remember the O’Reilly-Obama pre-Super Bowl interview just last weekend where the President said there was not a smidgen of corruption involved in the IRS situation where conservative groups were targeted?

Video: Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama

Transcript of IRS Portion of the Interview:

O’REILLY:  I’ve got to get to the IRS…
OBAMA:  Yes.
O’REILLY:  — because I don’t know what happened there and I’m hoping maybe you can tell us.  Douglas Shulman, former IRS chief, he was cleared into the White House 157 times, more than any of your cabinet members, more than any other IRS guy in the history, by far.
OK, why was Douglas Shulman here 157 times?
Why?
OBAMA:  Mr. Shulman, as the head of the IRS, is constantly coming in, because at the time, we were trying to set up the, uh, HealthCare.gov and the IRS…
O’REILLY:  What did he have to do with that?
OBAMA:  — and the IRS is involved in making sure that that works as part of the overall health care team.
O’REILLY:  So it was all health care?
OBAMA:  Number two, we’ve also got the IRS involved when it comes to some of the financial reforms to make sure that we don’t have taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.  So you had all these different agendas in which the head of the IRS is naturally involved.
O’REILLY:  Did you speak to him a lot…
OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE).
O’REILLY:  — yourself?
OBAMA:  I do not recall meeting with him in any of these meetings that are pretty routine meetings that we had.
O’REILLY:  OK, so you don’t — you don’t recall seeing Shulman, because what some people are saying is that the IRS was used…
OBAMA:  Yes.
O’REILLY:  — at a — at a local level in Cincinnati, and maybe other places to go after…
OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.
O’REILLY:  — to go after.
OBAMA:  Absolutely wrong.
O’REILLY:  But how do you know that, because we — we still don’t know what happened there?
OBAMA:  Bill, we do — that’s not what happened.  They — folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this.  I mean these kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part because you and your TV station will promote them.
O’REILLY:  But don’t…
OBAMA:  But when (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY:  — think there are unanswered questions?
OBAMA:  Bill, when you actually look at this stuff, there have been multiple hearings on it.  What happened here was it that you’ve got a…
O’REILLY:  But there’s no definition on it.
OBAMA:  — you’ve got a 501(c)(4) law that people think is focusing.  No — that the folks did not know how to implement…
O’REILLY:  OK…
OBAMA:  — because it basically says…
O’REILLY:  — so you’re saying there was no…
OBAMA:  — if you are involved…
O’REILLY:  — no corruption there at all, none?
OBAMA:  That’s not what I’m saying.
O’REILLY:  (INAUDIBLE).
OBAMA:  That’s actually…
O’REILLY:  No, no, but I want to know what…
OBAMA:  — (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY:  — you’re saying.  You’re the leader of the country.
OBAMA:  Absolutely.
O’REILLY:  You’re saying no corruption?
OBAMA:  No.
O’REILLY:  None?
No?
OBAMA:  There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…
O’REILLY:  Bone-headed decisions…
OBAMA:  — out of — out of a local office…
O’REILLY:  But no mass corruption?
OBAMA:  Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.

If there isn’t a smidgen of corruption, why was Obama’s new #IRS Chief apologizing… and perhaps already lying?

Then on Wednesday, 02.05.14, the new chief of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen (74), a lawyer with little tax experience but with a reputation as a troubleshooter, apologized and promised that one of his priorities is to restore public trust in the IRS on the one hand but played down the IRS scandal as a minor issue with a handful of conservative political groups as if the matter was minor and settled (which it isn’t) on the other hand… just as new of the Lerner off-plan has emerged.

Video: IRS Commissioner Apologizes For Tea Party Targeting - Jenny Beth Martin - On The Recorded

It has also come to light that virtually the first thing Koskinen did after taking office as IRS Commissioner was to give out $62 million in bonuses to boost moral among IRS workers… Really?  How about the moral of average Americans and those who have been targeted by the IRS with audits and delays of approval for their 501(c)(4)? Sounds a lot like same old same old to me?!?

Video: But as Carney Said Previously… An IRS Apology Is Not Concrete Evidence Of IRS Scandal

Bombshell Revelation: ‘Smoking Gun’ E-Mail Uncovered at IRS Congressional Hearing (Video)

Is it me… or does something just not ring true here? 

Technorati Tags: IRS,Conservatives,Lies,Obamaland,Corruption,Audits,Scandals,Treasury,501(c)(4),Tea Party,Stealing Elections,O 'Reilly,Koskinen,Lois Lerner,Watch the Other Hand,Targeting Conservatives,Off-Plan

Justice Department and Holder Declining to Prosecute Alleged IRS Abuse… As Questions Continue to Arise

Exterior of the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington Photo: AP File

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

A top Republican senator is pressing Attorney General Eric Holder for answers following allegations by a government watchdog that the IRS may have improperly accessed the tax records of a political donor or candidate -- but the Justice Department declined to prosecute the case.

J. Russell George, the inspector general who audited the IRS has claimed he turned over evidence of criminal behavior that the DOJ refused to press charges on. Among George's claims was that politicians were targeted for audits and that confidential donor and candidate tax information was accessed.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), questioned whether these breeches were politically motivated. 

George pointed out one case where information was willfully accessed against the current US law and in his letter to congress said, "we presented evidence of a willful unauthorized access to the Department of Justice, but the case was declined for prosecution."

The DOJ is refusing to pursue any charges against the IRS for audits or harassment of politicians, Conservative Groups or Donors or related individuals.

This is hardly the first time Eric Holder has refused to prosecute a case against democrats and liberals.

He also refused to prosecute the two New Black Panthers, who committed voter intimidation, even though career attorneys at the DOJ, strongly recommended it. Holder has also refused to prosecute Wall Street big wigs like Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jon Corzine, and the board of Solyndra, all large contributors to President Obama's campaigns, and how about all the other Obama administration scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi, just to mention a few.

And for anyone out there that thinks these scandals don’t or won’t affect them… There has also never been an answer as to why none of the Tea Party and other Conservative Groups were never granted their non-profit status through the IRS in 2012… or any answers to 2012 Voter Fraud allegations in general. When it affects our votes or the election process, it affects all of us.

Daily Mail Reported:

'Coincidence? You decide': Sarah Palin's father 'horribly harassed' by IRS under probe led by Obama donor, her brother claims

• In a January 11 Facebook post, Chuck Heath Jr. accused the IRS of going after his dad Chuck Heath Sr.
• He said the elderly man said he had been 'horribly harassed' six times since Palin became the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008
• Heath Jr. suggested the new found interest was no coincidence, but part of an IRS's heightened security of conservative groups

Sarah Palin's father has been 'horribly harassed' by the IRS, her brother has claimed.

In a January 11 Facebook post, Chuck Heath Jr. accused the tax man of going after his dad Chuck Heath Sr. six times since Palin became the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008, suggesting the new found interest is no accident.

'Coincidence? You decide,' he wrote on his page.

Harassed? Sarah Palin's father Chuck Heath Sr, pictured above, has been 'horribly harassed' by the IRS, her brother has claimed

'My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS.

'In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words "horribly harassed" six times by the agency.'

He added: 'They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board. Government and politics are ugly. Kudos to the few that are trying to clean it up.'

Attack: In a January 11 Facebook post, Chuck Heath Jr., pictured working his sister's campaign, accused the tax man of going after his dad Chuck Heath Sr six times since Palin became the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008, suggesting the new found interest is no accident.

Support: After streams of anti-Obama comments to his post, Heath Jr responded, 'Thank you guys for the support. I know Dad appreciates it'

Heath Jr. was suggesting the attention allegedly directed towards his father was part of the IRS's heightened scrutiny of conservative groups.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI doesn't plan to file criminal charges in the probe, after it failed to find enough evidence of political bias to prove a violation of criminal law had occurred.

The news will likely intensify debate over the politically charged scandal.

After streams of anti-Obama comments to this post, Heath Jr. responded.

'Thank you guys for the support. I know Dad appreciates it,' he wrote.

'I wasn't going to say anything about the IRS targeting him when he told me about it a few months ago. I guess I feared some kind of retaliation from them.

'But when I heard the person heading up the IRS investigation for their targeting of Tea Party groups was a major Obama donor, I felt compelled to say something.

'We are all so sick of cronyism and backdoor tactics that bring good people down.'

Barbara Bosserman, a trial attorney within the IRS's Civil Rights Commission, is leading the internal investigation. According to reports she is a frequent donor to the Democratic National Committee and President Obama.

Chuck Heath and Chuck Heath Jr., Sarah Palin’s father and brother, like her children, are private citizens who are being harassed at every turn by the media and now the IRS because they are related to her.  Sarah’s great sin… she stood up to the corruptocrats in Alaska and won and gave life to the McCain ticket after her rousing VP nomination acceptance speech and scared the Hell out of the establishments in both parties and the ruling elite everywhere.  Why? Because she is and would represent the American people and continue to call out the beltway politicians and power elite.  So they had their minions in the media destroy her with lies, frivolous law suits… all of which she won, and continuous attacks on her and her family.

In a recent interview Roger Ailes said, “The only two people I knew who got worse press than Sarah Palin were Richard Nixon and George W. Bush — much of it unfairly, most of it unfair to her family.”, and she is still standing strong and Undefeated.  CNN Said Palin Influence Far from Diminishing and Jim DeMint at the Heritage Foundation said there was no more valuable endorsement in conservative circles than that of Sarah Palin… as Ted Cruz and others have said, Palin is the Kingmaker.  Ailes also knows that Palin just might take another shot at the big job herself… after all who better to go head to head with Hillary Clinton. The DNC’s carrot would be electing the first female president.  It truly would be the battle of the Century! And Ailes as well as the powers that be know it!

Election 2016 is a make or break it election for America’s future direction and definitely for Conservatives the Republican Party! Conservatives have lost their credibility because the don’t stand up for their own! And Progressives, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Holder will do anything and everything to steal that election (2014 and 2016).

Time for all of us to get involved!!

Read more:

Criminal charges not expected in IRS probe The Wall Street Journal

Chuck Heath Jr 

Issa, Republicans Blast Decision Not to Pursue Criminal Charges in IRS Scandal 

Holder implicated in IRS Cover Up

Book by Chuck Heath Sr. and Chuck Heath Jr. - Our Sarah: Made in Alaska (Kindle)

Technorati Tags: IRS,Big Brother Tactics,Holder,Cronyism,Chuck Heath,Palin 2016,Scandals,Sarah Palin,DOJ,Undefeated,CNN,Eric Holder,Wake-Up,Watch the Other Hand,Tea Party,Stealing Elections,Conservatives,Progressives

RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Audio: RUSH: GOP Will Be Tricked Into Saving ObamaCare

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Says Country Will Never Develop Nuclear Weapons in NBC INTERVIEW… Is the World Really That Naïve?

Video: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani NBC INTERVIEW Country Will Never Develop Nuclear Weapons  -  Is Anyone Really That Naïve?

Published on Sep 18, 2013:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News on Wednesday that the country will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has the clout to make a deal with the West on the disputed atomic program.

"In its nuclear program, this government enters with full power and has complete authority," Rouhani told Ann Curry, NBC News national and international correspondent and anchor at large, in his first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election.

"The problem won't be from our side," he said at the presidential compound in Tehran. "We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem."

Asked whether Iran would ever build a nuclear weapon, Rouhani noted that the country has repeatedly pledged that "under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever."

"We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb, and we are not going to do so," he said. "We solely are looking for peaceful nuclear technology."

Rouhani's comments are the latest in a slew of signs that he is cautiously open to defrosting relations with the U.S., which were in deep freeze under the isolating leadership of his predecessor, the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

He and President Obama have exchanged letters in which they traded views on "some issues."

"From my point of view, the tone of the letter was positive and constructive," Rouhani said of the note he got from the White House congratulating him on his June election, in which he defeated five hard-liners.

"It could be subtle and tiny steps for a very important future. I believe the leaders in all countries could think in their national interest and they should not be under the influence of pressure groups. I hope to witness such an atmosphere in the future."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that in the letter, Obama told Rouhani the U.S. is open to a resolution to the nuclear impasse in which Iran can prove its atomic program is peaceful.

But he also conveyed the need to act quickly because the window for a diplomatic deal "will not remain open indefinitely," Carney said.

On another pressing topic, Rouhani was questioned about his views on Iran's close ally Syria and its promise to give up chemical weapons under the threat of air strikes from the U.S.

He said he could give no guarantees on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, just days after he was quoted by his country's official news agency as saying he would accept any Syrian president elected by the people.

Fox News Contributor Lisa Diftari had quite a different take from the hopeful and naïve  mainstream media on Rouhani’s NBC Interview comments.  She warned that this was a play by Rouhani to improve the Iranian economy, which would take his people off the streets and in-turn take pressure off the Iranian government, buying Iran more time, funds and flexibility to continue their uranium enrichment program and to develop nuclear weapons!  As she warned, “In Iran’s case, the motto must be ‘guilty until proven innocent’”  Should America, Israel and the world really be naïve enough not to follow that line, everyone will be the loser in the end!

Book:  Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy

Technorati Tags: Iran,Nuclear Iran,smoke and Mirrors,manipulation,Middle East,wake-up,Rouhani,Ahmedinejad,Naive,NBC,MSM,Ann Curry,Brian Williamson,guilty until proven innocent,buying time,NUKES

McCain – A Treasonous Enemy Within

Photo Courtesy of The Right Scoop

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton  -  Cross-Posted at Gateway Pundit:

Last Friday, a man in Prescott, AZ said what all of us have been thinking and saying — John McCain has morphed into a treasonous lapdog for Barack Obama and is licking the fascist boots of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who comprise the barbaric Rebels in the Syrian conflict.

From Real Clear Politics:

“We the people want you to be representative of the people and for this great nation, but for far too long now on the rest of Congress, including the executive branch of government, along with the judicial and legislative have turned your back on the American people and their core values and principles. I can say with great confidence and speak on behalf of all Americans that your actions against this country are treasonous. All of you — against the will of the American people — have aided and abetted the enemy,” said the town hall attendee.

“You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen,” the town hall attendee said to an irritated McCain. “I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad.”

“You swore an oath to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic,” he said. “The simple irony is that the domestic enemy, now in this country, is the people in government, the Untied States. And McCain, you and the rest of the leaders are accountable for their actions. It is too bad that someone like me is not in office to hold you accountable. Because if I was in a position of power or authority, I would have you all arrested and tried for treason against my country.”

“If you and the rest of this government are truly for the American people and representatives of us, I suggest this time you listen because nobody wants another war or strike in Syria or anywhere else,” he said.

“I am truly disgusted that you people are my leaders,” the man concluded. He was met with a mix of boos and cheers.

An arrogant McCain attempts to dress down this brave man by touting his tenure in AZ and says Americans approve of his performance. No we do not you asshat. You need to go as do all the other progressives in the House and Senate. For the life of me, I do not know why you have stayed in office in Arizona. A large part of my family lives there and I have lived there too. McCain is roundly despised in Arizona. All I can fathom is he is the lesser of offered evils and the progressive political Republican machine on the right is well organized there. The Tea Party needs to boot his sorry butt to the curb. McCain has been under the covers with Obama and the Left for far too long and that he would send our proud military — our sons and daughters, wives and husbands — to be mercenaries for radical Islam is a disgrace.

Video:  McCain Gets Slammed at Townhall Meeting -  I Would Have You Arrested for Treason!!

O’Reilly Buys Obama Propaganda on Syria

McCain: Obama Faces Impeachment for Boots on Ground  - Taking out of both sides of his mouth again

McCain’s RINO Buddy Lindsey Graham: Either we kill some camels in Syria or Charleston could get nuked by Iran!

Technorati Tags: McCain,Middle East,watch the other hand,Syria,War,Congress,Military,Politics,Religion,Survival,John McCain,Terrorism

Thoughts on Syria… From All Sides

This Is About Destroying Sovereignty’: Beck Examines Potential Syria Strike Through the Eyes of a ‘Radical Leftist’

Many have been alarmed by the rapid escalation in Syria this week after years of horrific violence. With the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, U.S. officials say America could begin missile strikes within the week.

But why now? What exactly do we hope to achieve?

(Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Glenn Beck tackled the issue on his television program Wednesday evening, arguing that the focus of the administration may not be on the war itself — but on the subsequent layout of the world.

“This administration knows that we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile, global stability is weak, the west is on the edge, it’s only a matter of time before it crumbles,” he said. “Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel, Syria starts spilling across the border… When it all falls apart and the west is so weakened, who puts it all back together again?”

“War is — after a long period of just running things into the ground — war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war,” Beck continued. “Beyond that, history shows us that war also changes all the players. It changes borders, it changes everything…”

He speculated that after a period of violence, we will “gather at the U.N. because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out, ‘stop the madness!’ And so we do, the international way.”

If we’re not listening to China now, Beck said he guarantees we’ll listen to them at the bargaining table, and we’ll concede. If they say, for instance, we’ll forgive your debts if you just sign the U.N. Arms Treaty, we will.

“This is about destroying sovereignty,” Beck asserted. “The United Nations will, in the end, broker the deal, making them the new superpower and making us just one of the guys. That’s what everybody wants, for the United States just to be average, just like everybody else…”

Considering alternate explanations, Beck said he can think of “a million reasons” why we shouldn’t intervene, “and not one why we should.”

Intervention, he said, will further destabilize Syria, further destabilize the region, and will likely impact our gas prices and the stock market.

If we are intervening purely for humanitarian purposes, why didn’t we intervene sooner? Why don’t we intervene in other cases of mass slaughter? And if the tipping point is truly chemical weapons, Beck asked if you trust the intelligence community more or less than the last time they claimed there were weapons of mass destruction?

Remember the guy who cut his enemy’s heart out and ate it, Beck added? “We’re on his side now.”

The list goes on, Beck said, including the financial cost of the endeavor and the possibility of dragging us into another war we don’t have the energy or resources for.

“Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today, unfortunately,” he concluded. “Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder — hundreds of thousands have died… Syria is this — it is a sick opportunity for the globalist progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.”

Beck - Syria Intervention

Video: Glenn Beck: Intervention In Syria Will Establish One World Government - New World Order

8/28/13 - Glenn Beck says the threat of military action against Syria is part of a plot by global progressives to allow the UN to establish peace and avert WWIII and create a One World Government. 

Video:  George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria

August 29, 2013 - George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria

'Me And My Big Mouth' - UK's Cameron Backs Off From Syria Attack

The French Bow Out Of Syria Strike

And Russia Calls For Urgent UN Security Council Meeting

Some more from BBG:

• RUSSIA CALLED FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING, DIPLOMAT
• 5 PERMANENT COUNCIL MEMBERS U.K., U.S., FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA
• FIVE PERM. SEC. COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MEET AT 2:30P

Hopefully Putin doesn't whip out incontrovertible proof the chemical gas attack was linked to Al Qaeda, Qatar... and the US of course.

Two Minds on Syria

The New Yorker: So it looks like we’re going to bomb Assad.

Good.

Really? Why good?

Did you see the videos of those kids? I heard that ten thousand people were gassed. Hundreds of them died. This time, we have to do something.

Yes, I saw the videos.

And you don’t want to pound the shit out of him?

I want to pound the shit out of him.

But you think we shouldn’t do anything.

I didn’t say that. But I want you to explain what we’re going to achieve by bombing.

We’re going to let Assad know that chemical weapons are over the line. There’s a reason they’ve been illegal since Verdun or whenever.

Except when Saddam used them against the Kurds—we knew, and we didn’t say a word.

Is that a reason to let Assad use them against his people?

At this point, I don’t think Assad is too worried about the Geneva Conventions.

He should have to think hard before using them again.

He’s a bloody dictator fighting for survival. He’s going to do whatever he has to do.

Not if we really hurt him. Not if we pound his communications centers, his air-force bases, key government installations. He’ll be more likely to survive if he doesn’t use chemical weapons.

Killing civilians while we’re at it.

These would be very specific targets.

The wrong people always get killed.

Maybe. Probably. But if you were a Syrian being bombed by Assad every day, trying to keep your head down and your family alive, wouldn’t you want the world to respond, even if a few more people die? I think so.

Easy for you to say.

Hey, can we not personalize this?

Weren’t you just saying that I don’t care about dying children? (Pause.) So you want us to get involved in their civil war.

I’m not saying that.

But that’s what we’ll be doing. Intervening on the rebel side, tipping the balance in their favor.

Not necessarily. We’ll be drawing a line that says dictators don’t get to use W.M.D.s without consequences.

You can’t bomb targets on one side of a civil war without helping the other side.

It would be very temporary. We’d send Assad a clear message, and then we’d step back and let them go on fighting. We’re not getting involved any deeper than that, because I know what you’re going to say—

The rebels are a bunch of infighting, disorganized, jihadist thugs, and we can’t trust any of them.

I’m not saying we should.

And what do we do if Assad retaliates against Israel or Turkey? Or if he uses nerve gas somewhere else?

We hit him again.

And it escalates.

Not if we restrict it to cruise missiles and air strikes.

Now you’re scaring me. Have you forgotten Iraq?

Not for a single minute.

My point is that you can’t restrict it. You can’t use force for limited goals. You need to know what you’ll do after his next move, and the move after that.

It only escalates if we allow ourselves to get dragged in deeper. Kosovo didn’t escalate.

This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.

You think Putin is going to risk a military confrontation with the U.S. and Europe?

I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914.

That was a hundred years ago. Stop with the historical analogies.

You’re the one who brought up Verdun. And Kosovo.

I brought up Kosovo because you brought up Iraq. That’s the problem with these arguments. Iraq! Vietnam! Valley Forge! Agincourt! People resort to analogies so they don’t have to think about the matter at hand.

And because they don’t know anything about the matter at hand.

I know what I saw in those videos.

Thank God Obama doesn’t make foreign policy that way. He knows what he doesn’t know about Syria. He’s always thinking a few steps ahead. He’s not going to get steamrolled by John McCain and Anderson Cooper.

At a certain point, caution is another word for indecisiveness. Obama looks weak! Or worse—indifferent. Anyway, he should have thought ahead when he called chemical weapons a “red line.” He set that trap a year ago, and now we’re in it.

Why does it have to be a trap?

Because our credibility is on the line.

Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.

See, that’s another thing people do in these arguments.

What?

“You sound like so-and-so.” It shouldn’t matter who else is on your side. I mean, you’re in bed with Rand Paul. Anyway, credibility matters even if Kissinger said so. You have to do what you say you’re going to do, especially with bullies.

I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb them, we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.

Inaction has consequences, too. Assad gases more people, the death toll hits two hundred thousand, the weapons get into Hezbollah’s hands, Iran moves ahead with its nuclear program, the Syrian rebels disintegrate and turn to international terrorism, the whole region goes up in sectarian flames.

And how does firing cruise missiles at Damascus prevent any of this?

It doesn’t. But, look, all of this is already happening with us sitting it out. If we put a gun to Assad’s head, we might be able to have more influence over the outcome. At least we can prevent him from winning.

A violent stalemate. How wonderful for the Syrians. Some people think that’s the best solution for us.

I’m not saying that.

What are you saying?

I don’t know. I had it worked out in my head until we started talking. (Pause.) But we need to do something this time.

Not just to do something.

All right. Not just to do something. But could you do me a favor?

What’s that?

While you’re doing nothing, could you please be unhappy about it?

I am.

___

Above: photo authenticated based on its contents and other A.P. reporting, Syrians inspect buildings damaged by heavy shelling from Syrian government forces in Aleppo, on Monday, August 26th. Aleppo Media Center AMC/AP

Video: Daily State Department Press Briefing FULL. 8/28/2013  

Video: "IT'S NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!" Pentagon Sounding Kinda Defensive About Their Syria Intel 

Video: John Bolton with Greta Van Susteren slams Obama - President needs a character transplant to work effectively on Syria

And after all of this… Obama Threatens To Go It Alone On Syria

Ah, yes...President Obama is steaming mad since the Brits and French backed out of his little Syrian adventure, and he saying he's fully prepared to go it alone.

He even sent another American ship towards Syria, a destroyer escort.The Russians already have a fleet of warships headed that way.

Remember what our Dear Leader and his minions said in 2007 and 2008 about 'Cowboy' Bush? Remember the horse manure about "meeting the global Test" and the Magic Wisdom of the International Community?

Biden 2007

Video:  Here is Senator Joe Biden: Iran & Impeachment – Biden Saying If “W” Didn’t Get Congressional Approval Before Going to War He’d Seek Impeachment… and Senator Obama Agreed

So what happened?  There is very little support by Americans to enter the Syrian Civil War… In a new HuffPo poll, conducted after U.S. officials claimed Syria's government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed. Another 34 percent said that they're not sure.  Germany I also a thumbs down along with Britain and France.

The only logical conclusion is that the truth about the scandals Obama is attempting to divert attention from, by getting involved in Syria, are probably a lot worse than any of us thought.  Time for more investigation!!

You be the judge…  By Marion Algier – AskMarion~

Technorati Tags: One World Government,Joe Biden,Double Standards,Great Britain,Middle East,watch the other hand,Beck,Glenn Beck,Fox,Fox News,NWO,you be the judge,globalism,Syria,WWIII,War,Iran,Britain,France,Ambassador John Bolton,Greta Van Susteren,red lines