ACTION

                       Are Hollywood actors cowards about Obama Syrian military action?

As President Obama prepares the nation to go to war through his apparent ‘go it alone’ strategy where are the screams of alarm from Hollywood? Remember when the left cost Hollywood elite accused former President Bush of “Cowboy Diplomacy?” Now, with Britain on the sidelines with the rest of Obama’s coalition of the unwilling, his charm offensive at the G-20 Summit in Russia is under performing. Hollywood’s liberal millionaires are currently deafeningly silent.

This is in strange contrast to the continued poisonous verbal assaults by Hollywood actors lobbed against then President George Bush. Unlike Obama, Bush worked tirelessly to build an international 46 nation “Coalition of the Willing” to join the United States in war against Iraq.

Obama on the other hand cannot seem to muster a 2 nation Coalition of the Unwilling. Barack Obama has not made his case to America nor to the world and it is totally apparent to Americans to many of the former American Iraq and Afghanistan allies. This is Obama’s War and its launch has more to do with his embarrassment over a red line in the Syrian soil which even now he has attempted to erase.

As U.S. military forces prepare for war through its Mediterranean battleship presence, Hollywood with its liberal Obama yes men and women, seem to be hiding and strangely and uncharacteristically silent about possible military action and war.

Seann Penn, who like Hanoi Jane Fonda has had a penchant for visiting wartime enemies of America has not flung one typically profane word or otherwise toward Obama. Where is the outrage Penn is famous for when he attacked Bush as a war monger? Are 100,000 dead Syrians and 40 thousand of them innocent civilians in this civil war conflict not enough for Penn and his conscience of convenience?

What about Jaime Foxx who has no problem playing a president on the big screen and also attacking Bush with comments over the Iraq war in 200. He then told MSNBC in an interview, "I think George Bush and the guys that are there, just don't have the charisma to pull off the things that they're trying to do.”

Now fast forward to November 2012 when Foxx stood on stage at the Soul Train awards and called President Obama, “Our Lord and Savior.” Where is the charisma that this same “Lord and Savior” was supposed to possess to dazzle and impress the world’s nations with? Foxx, like his fellow actors are cowards whose principles shift with the box office printouts of their latest movies, and took cover when Obama decided to use military action as a run up to a possible war.

( Click - read more )

 THE RETURN OF THE ROBBER BARONS

The world in which the economist lives is as alien to the average citizen as are the Plains of Mars.  Yet, economists and their postulates are the driving force of our “modern” economic system.  Economists, since the Great Depression  have had more impact on changing the character or our nation then any of the tumultuous events  since that time including the disastrous economic and social upheavals of The Great Depression and World War II.  One economist, more than any other is responsible for the economic and moral decline of America and for that matter of most of the western democracies.  That man is John Maynard Keynes.   It is an anomaly that this man and his monumental commentary on the causes and solutions to economic destabilization and the promotion of a universal economic and social equilibrium, (The General theory of Employment, Interest and Money), has so greatly influenced academia and has become so invested in government policy and  is so widely accepted by government policy makers.  His entire theory and his defense of it is so garbled, inconsistent, and so  incorrect that it should have been rejected as rapidly as economists  rejected the economic absurdity of Huey Long and Francis Townsend and his Townsend Plan during the 1930’s. This assessment of Keynes’ General Theory would be suspect if not for the fact that it is the consensus of a number of Keynes’ highly respected contemporary peers.  Among his detractors we find F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises.  A current critique is David Stockman author of the current bestseller, THE GREAT DEFORMATION, The Corruption of Capitalism in America (Public Affairs, 2013).

                Keynes’ greatest contribution in aid of his monetary scheme is the concept that the government through its central bank should have exclusive control of the currency, print money and expand the money supply to the point where interest rates would be reduced to the zero point.  To Keynes, interest rates naturally exceed the value of money lent and when allowed to rise will bring on a depression or recession.  Hence, interest rates on invested funds (as well as stock dividends) should be eliminated.  Although Henry Hazlitt’s critique of The General Theory consisting of a virtual word by word sentence by sentence examination and repudiation of the General Theory is greatly informative, it is burdened with a thoroughness that makes it as difficult to read and comprehend as is Keynes’ General Theory itself.  Fortunately this problem has been remedied by economist Hunter Lewis in his recent E-Book WHERE KEYNES WENT WRONG, And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles and Busts.  Mr. Lewis has reviewed, as did Hazlett, each paragraph of the General Theory and found it irrational and based upon suppositions, assumed facts and fanciful economic theory.  Fortunately, he states his case in layman’s language.  The question he tries to answer is the one that confounds even David Stockman and indeed the rest of the rational world: if Keynes is indeed as irrational as Hazlett asserts, why have economists from Harvard to Berkley extolled and adopted the dogma encompassed in his General Theory? Why is Keynesism the foundation of our national and world economic structure after having been so soundly repudiated?  How can economists like Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, and Allen Greenspan along with virtually every member of the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department subscribe to Keynesian doctrine? 

                In my recent book OBAMANOMICS, Nation Building on a Charge Card (Amazon Kindle, 2013) I attempted to explain the popularity of Keynesism.  I start by suggesting that the greater volume of the General Theory is irrelevant to the present economic community.  For the liberal elite, their only interest in Keynesism is its assertion that the government should assume a dominant autocracy over a nation’s and for that matter the world’s money recourses.  When he published his General Theory in 1936, many economists let it pass apparently believing it was not intended to be serious work.  Others no doubt passed on criticizing the work to avoid the scathing broad side that Keynes was noted to unleash on his critics. 

                The General Theory was  published when the world and America were in the trough of the Great Depression and Capitalism was under attack.  Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler had each declared that Capitalism was a failure and that a new economic order was mandated to bring to the oppressed masses, social justice.  Keyens’s General Theory, whether so intended or not provided a rational support to the rise of the super state.  I do not intend by the above grouping to suggest that each of the world leaders were during the 30’s of the same character.  Each, however, would lead their nations away from capitalist individualism and put their nation on the pathway to a new social order rejecting the legal and social traditions that would have placed restraints on their ambitions.  Fortunately for America, the transition was not wrought by brutality and was imposed upon us by a gentler hand. (It was the old frog in the boiling pot approach). Roosevelt, upon taking office had already launched a program of big government spending and confiscatory taxation.  Keynes’ General Theory, premised as it was on the concept of deficit spending and market intervention fit like a glove on Roosevelt’s heavy handed market intervention.  Keynes’ theory on suppressing or eliminating interest rates and expanding the money supply through deficit spending to stimulate economic growth thrives yet today having been adopted as the policy justification underlying Roosevelt’s New Deal and has also the effect of confirming the liquidity policies of the Federal Reserve. 

                Keynes knew as few did at the time, that he who controlled the economic structure of any nation through a central banking structure controlled not only the wealth of the nation but also held dominion over the liberties and the limits thereon of the nation’s citizens.  Keynes avoided the raging philosophical confrontation between Capitalism and totalitarian socialism by espousing yet a new doctrine which he asserted (when convenient) was not anti capitalist.    Keynes believed and so stated in his General Theory, that the individual, whether businessman or laborer was too ignorant to wisely manage his own affairs, thus concluding that the wealth of a nation should be managed by others (never quite identified) who had the superior knowledge and experience to make the right choices and decisions in managing the nation’s capital. Of course this argument justifies in Keynes’ work that Central Banks and central planning is a necessity and that governments should have dominion over the individual, his property and his welfare.  Keynes asserted that those superior persons appointed to manage our money and welfare would alleviate man from the burdens of every day endeavor and bring to all a universal, sustainable prosperity, eliminate recessions and depression and equally distribute the wealth of the nation.  (This is of course the same allusions promoted by communists and socialists) Weather we call this system communism or socialism is basically irrelevant.  It is however without doubt despotism in is most virulent form.   It is our present misfortune to have a government of self anointed economic imperialists motivated not by our nation’s moral and law based traditions, but upon their Keynesian belief that they are superior to us all and through central banking and central planning can lead the nation into their conception of a new utopian social order.

                As pointed out by his above named detractors, the greatest absurdity engaged in by present economists is the Keynesian concept that when the policy of deficit spending, regulation and taxation fails to stabilize the economy, the inevitable answer is that you obviously have been too timid and must create more debt, more spending and more regulation ad infinitum until your program finally works. This is the position taken by Paul Krugman, in his New York Times Articles. What is left of the economy and the savings of the multitude by that time you reach his intended equilibrium is not addressed in the General Theory.  Keynes of course is no advocate of personal saving, to him that only defeats the market intervention. Savings to Keynes is considered almost anti social as it runs contrary to his conception that the more spending there is the more jobs are created.  He ignores the fact that savings are converted into investments, but to him investing is defined as money printing and deficit financing. 

                Without addressing the cause of our current recession (yes, we are still in a recession) which I address in my book OBAMANOMICS Nation Building on a Charge Card  I would again refer to the criticism of David Stockman and Mr. Lewis.  The continuing bubble to burst economy they refer to is the direct consequence of Federal Reserve’s Keynesian money policy. Roosevelt and Nixon in order to finance larger and larger and more intrusive government knew they could not do so as long as the American dollar was the world’s reserve currency and was backed by a gold standard.  Roosevelt ended gold-dollar convertibility and Nixon took the nation off the gold standard altogether.  The dollar was allowed to float and money inflation became the means to finance big government.  As a consequence the value of the dollar has decreased by 95% since the Federal Reserve took over the money market.   Energy prices and food prices continue to rise as real personal income declines.  Most significant, the rich are becoming richer while the rest of the population suffers from economic stagnation or retraction.  How does this happen?  The answer to this question lies in simple money market economics which Keynesian economist shroud in a jargon that is meant to and does mislead the public away from an understanding of how the general public is being pillaged through our Federal Reserve and big government policies.

                The Federal Reserve is not a government agency.  It is owned and managed by member banks and is independent of and in many ways more powerful than our constitutionally created government.  The chairmanship of the Fed is an autonomous office once the chairman is appointed.  This independence is asserted to make the Fed immune from political influences which in itself is an absurdity.  The Fed is, as intended by its early advocates, dominated by the large Wall Street banks as is the Department of the Treasury where Wall Street bankers find a home.  The current Fed policy of quantative easing, pumping billions of dollars into the economy is supposedly intended to encourage economic growth and end our present recession is in actuality creating only inflation and dollar devaluation.   There could be no other result when the Fed uses the Wall Street banks as the conduits to money expansion.  Would it be a surprise to anyone that these banks, being the first to receive the funds would get the first take and would first enhance their own position before passing the money through their system to stimulate the economy by granting loans that are burdened with their interest costs?  Books have been written about the Fed, its dubious founding, and its deleterious effect on our national economy.  The paper money the Fed prints, supposedly backed by the full  faith and credit of the United States Government is in actuality a farce as the so called faith and credit is backed only by more printed money  that has no real value except that value caused by the money  monopoly enjoyed by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.  As President Obama sets out on a new crusade to allow the Federal government to entrench itself ever deeper into the nation’s educational institutions, he does so with the knowledge that there are no real restraints to his ambitions as the Fed will print the money to make it happen. It is time that our nation, as urged by David Stockman and many traditional economist, to eliminate the Federal  Reserve and put our money back on a free market gold standard and thus eliminate the autocracy of the Wall Street bankers over the nation’s economy! It is time to end the crony Capitalism addressed by David Stockman that makes billionaires on Wall Street and paupers on Main Street.                     

No other economic system has brought more people out of poverty, provided for the health and well-being of millions and raised the standard of living more societies than capitalism. When people cooperate to fulfill their own self interest, they all benefit.

Capitalism and freedom are inextricably linked. When the Declaration of Independence was first drafted it read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property."

This was changed later to read "pursuit of happiness" because the Founders did not want the document to be perceived to support slavery. But the first draft read 'property'. Why?

The concept of property, and private property rights are indispensable to freedom and liberty. They are also indispensable to capitalism. Realize first that the term property includes much more than the material items we buy, store or make. Property also includes our thoughts, actions, education and experience and labor. Our voices, spirituality and even our lives are also our property. What we do with our property, how we employ it to better our lives and take care of our families ought to be completely up to us. Government was created, and its only function should be to protect our property and our right to employ, or not to employ them as we see fit.

The Declaration of Independence listed those three specific rights, and then the very next line explained the function of government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. Then, in the US Constitution, the government created specifically to secure our rights is strictly limited in its power, lest the government created by the governed become too powerful. Also, to further restrict the power of government and to secure our rights and property, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution before the states would ratify it.

So, our God-given rights are also our property and government exists to secure these rights and the Constitution exists to protect us from government. The freedom assured to the people in such an arrangement naturally leads to capitalism. It is this system, a Federal government with strictly limited powers and a populace with the freedom to employ their property as they wish, allowed the United States to rise from a small, backward agrarian society to become a world power in less than a century.

It is this legal respect for personal property that allowed great innovation, invention and industry to flourish. It is the mobility that was granted to our people by our freedoms that allowed the country to grow and our people to prosper. The extension of the concept of property to include our ideas that allowed the Wright Brothers to invent the first powered aircraft. It allowed the Thomas Edisons, Henry Fords and the Steve Jobs of our country to patent and protect their ideas, grow companies and provide incomes and livelihoods to an untold millions of people. I’ve seen the other side. In my time in the Army, I’ve served both in Germany and in South Korea. I’ve seen what communism looks like staring back from across Europe's Iron Curtain and the DMZ. I’ve seen the misery and poverty that comes from a centrally planned economy where personal property rights don’t exist and liberty is unknown. The walls that I guarded wearing the uniform of freedom were not constructed by us to keep the forces of communism out. Those walls were built by the forces of communism to hold their own people in.

For once you strip the people of their liberty, their freedom and their property, in all its forms, you’ve stripped them of their individuality. They no longer exist for themselves, they no longer have any worth except to fill some role that betters the State. They are more like workers in an ant hill with no individual rights, no personal property, no way to improve their lives for all property and all means of production belong to the queen.

But, now, our Constitution and the concept of property are under attack. We have a president that is alienating those that create. He, and his allies on the Left, are making enemies of those that innovate, build and dream. He is espousing a philosophy that states that in order for anyone to get ahead, we have to pull the successful among us down. Somehow he is trying to convince us that by taking money from some of our citizens and giving that money to the government, that the poor among us will be better off. The truth is that all that will happen is that all of us become poorer.

This rhetoric is designed to simultaneously group us into the “masses” and divide us into groups. It has been called “class warfare” but it goes much deeper. The term “fairness” is used over and over to espouse a false argument that there should be an equality in outcome, that we should all be the same, that some having more is somehow unfair to those that have less. In capitalism, wealth can be created exponentially through innovation, invention and starting a small business, hiring people and becoming a large business. Having wealth and creating wealth is not dependent upon seizing the wealth from others. Now we are being told that we can achieve equality, and “fairness” only by seizing the wealth of others and to give it to those that do not contribute.

We must recognize that if we stand idly by and by our inaction, allow the government to seize the property of some of our citizens under the false premise that it benefits us all, we all lose. For once a freedom is lost, once we surrender a liberty, it will not come back. We must recognize that the government is not only trying to convince us they are only seeking to achieve "fairness" and only they can best determine what that means and they will take, by force, the property from some of our citizens for those ends. How is it, in the words of Mark Levine, that we are wise enough to choose our leaders, but not our lightbulbs? This entire concept turns our founding on its head and the government has become supreme. The people have surrendered their Liberty.

Capitalism, and the concept of private property, has proven that one can employ their property: their ideas, labor, capital, experience, education, hard work, spirituality, time and dreams and put them to work to advance their well-being, raise a family, and leave this a better country, a better world for your children than how you inherited it. We are close to losing this America. We are close to losing our freedoms. We have a government now that does not respect personal property and believes it can choose better how you should employ your property. For every new power the government gains, it must necessarily take a like amount of freedom from us.

To get an in depth researched read on this go to http://toupsmichael.wordpress.com

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/09/03/graham-nukes-in-hands-of-terrorists-could-result-in-bomb-coming-to-charleston-harbor/

And here is a followup article 

http://www.infowars.com/sen-graham-warns-of-nuke-strike-after-missing-nuke-report/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1C8QYZIrBk

China, Russia, Iran, Turkey all standing with the Syrian leader & the USA wants to jump in? Yesterday they said that we have spent 25 MILLION LAST WEEK just having our navy there off the coast. 

Email, fax , call your elected ask them to say no to Syria & defund Obamacare

 By Oscar Y. Harward

Education for our children, whether it be public schools, charter schools, private schools, church schools, etc., must focus on training more ‘values’ of ‘right v. wrong’ on civility as taught in ‘civics’ classes; an approach that seems to have become minimized, or perhaps, disappeared.  It appears children are not even taught ‘privacy rights’ in ‘public schools’.  Children and older individuals and groups ignore and infringe on personal properties as it these ‘rights’ do not even exist.

Prior to the 1963 SCOTUS decision to remove the ‘Holy Bible’ from our public schools, there was very little crime in each community.  As ‘God’ was removed, our public schools became unguarded zones to open sex, illegal drugs, guns, etc.

Now, there are many schools that seem to have ‘teachers’ in ‘public schools’ who do not even know and/or teach our Constitution and its’ values.  It has become a rarity to even recite the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’ in public schools.  Parents are joining and encircling their children’s lives in parent/child(ren) public schools, yet seem to be swallowed by our immoral individual teachings.

Fundamental freedoms, as written by our Founding Fathers, in building our nation based on Christian values are most important to restoring our social, fiscal, and national security, ‘in that order’.

Each responsible parent wants his/her child(ren) to get the best education.  Each responsible parent should be allowed to choose from multiple approved responsible school resources, and taxpayers’ funding(s) should be directed to the child(ren).  No schools, public schools, charter schools, private schools, church schools, etc., should be allowed to continue with public funding without responsibility of teaching our children these values.

Here we go again...another politician needs a war to cover their rear on more important matters, like Benghazi, IRS,
NSA, Deficit, and Jobs etcetc...
Why are we, mostly Jewdayoh(phonetic?)/Christians aiding Muslims who are killing Christians?
WE, the U.S. in U.S.A., founded our country on the belief in GOD and Biblical Principles.
We are surrendering to Godless Muslims and Political B.S..
Return our Rights to our States and abolish Federal Incompetent Govt.
P.S.I deeply pray the politicians who cause so many useless deaths and misery should meet EACH of their
victim's soul on Judgement day and explain to them why it is so, in the presence of GOD.
Cal

Is Obama Impeachable?

Just what makes a president impeachable?  The Constitution states very plainly that a president may be impeached for “… high crimes and misdemeanors…”.  Can he be impeached for lying about the Bengazi attack?  Nope.  If Lying were an impeachable offense every president since at LEAST Buchannan should have been impeached.  Lying is immoral, but it is not a crime.  Now if that lie obstructed justice in some way that would be a crime; however I have no idea how we could prove that one unless we could come up with something in writing.  We certainly can’t expect either Hilary or Holter to fill us in.  They have both been caught lying to congress.

Did the President authorize the stand down o our forces when the diplomatic mission in Bengazi asked for help or did some ground commander accept Hilary’s orders. 

I recently read a blog on a Tea Party site that listed 100 reasons he is impeachable.  Guess what?   Maybe three of those one hundred reasons are actually impeachable offenses!

How about Fast and Furious?  Sorry you can’t impeach for the actions of a subordinate.  Now if there is PROOF that he personally authorized that then just maybe that is a crime.  But first you have to prove that the law was in fact violated and that the whole thing wasn’t a case of really bad judgment.  If the goal was to put guns in the hands of known criminals, then yes that is a felony.  I believe Holter did do that, but who is going to prosecute him.  He is the nation’s chief prosecutor!  Is there anyway to prove to the senate that Obama did in fact have prior knowledge that this crime was to be committed and either overtly or tacitly authorized it?  I doubt it.  Once again we know Holter isn’t afraid of congress or of blatantly lying to them.  He was convicted of contempt of congress for that and just laughed it off.  Again who is going to prosecute?

Spying in many ways with many of the agencies he controls on average American Citizens without due process?  Impeachable and we can prove it.  He has admitted it openly.

Ignoring the Constitution by consistently violating the second, fourth, fifth tenth and fourteenth amendments?  Impeachable because it violates his sacred oath.  Violation of a sworn oath is a misdemeanor and in this case, probably a felony.

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

It is said that he has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.  Impeachable.  No President is above the law.  But that one is on very shaky ground.  Law enforcement agencies have use their own discretion when enforcing laws for literally centuries in this country.  Otherwise you should be arrested in South Dakota for drinking a malt on Sunday or taking a drink of alcohol on Sunday in some southern states.

 He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

These last three are direct quotes from the articles of impeachment offered to the house by The Black Republicans Association.  These articles are well thought out and I recommend reading all of their Articles of Impeachment at
http://godfatherpolitics.com/12154/blacks-file-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-obama/#CYGEY4TrqmQ5cLaU.99

So OK, he is indeed impeachable and the House of Representatives can do that with a clear conscience; however, once impeached by the House he must be tried by the Senate.  The Senate is controlled by the democrats and led by a fervently anti-constitutionalist senior senator from Nevada known as Harry Reid.  Just how far do you think that trial would go?  Even as far as Slick Willy’s?  Probably not.

Tea Party Leader Who Endorsed McConnell Opponent Is Registered Democrat freebeacon.com A prominent Kentucky Tea Party leader who endorsed the Republican primary challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a registered Democrat who signed a pledge to support Democratic polici

There is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to military action in Syria when the possible outcomes are so damaging:
 
1. The US military attacks with cruise missiles which does some damage, Assad stays in power, their civil war continues as it has. Why attack, no change? Except with no international support, the credibility of the US is severely damaged. Bad outcome. US forces are put in harm's way and we kill people with no strategic change in the situation in Syria. 
2. The US attacks, Assad stays in power, Syria and/or Iran attacks Israel in retaliation to US attack, much larger regional conflict is ignited. Bad. We could be dragged into defending Israel from an attack which we instigated with no long-range plan of success. Or we could abandon Israel. Also very bad outcomes. 
3. The US military attacks, destroys Syria's air force and air defenses, Assad falls. Rebels, including Al Qaida seize control including Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. Bad. This scenario doesn't even guarantee the end of the conflict as Hezbollah, Al Quds, Iran, Alwites still support Al Assad and could easily continue fighting even after Assad is gone - Think Egypt, only worse. Very bad outcome. We give chemical weapons to Al Qaida. 

To make matters worse, our allies have decided NOT to assist us in military intervention. The UN will not support military intervention. 81% of Americans are against intervention. Russia and China have warned us against intervention (which would make no difference to me if our national security was threatened, which it is not), Syria and Iran have promised to attack Israel if we attack Syria. Again, we have a totalitarian regime fighting against Islamic extremists groups, including Al Qaida. What's our role here? 

We can, however, provide humanitarian aid to the victims and Syrian refugee civilians, support our true ally in the region, Israel and interdict Iran's supply routes into Syria in Iraq. All good outcomes.

Chemical weapons cannot be destroyed by an air attack. Delivery systems can be damaged and the chemicals themselves can be spread by the use of explosives, but not destroyed. Either Assad will retain the chemical weapons or the opposition will seize them. 

How can this Administration convince us that they know everything that happened in Damascus with this chemical attack- what weapons were used, how they were delivered, who conducted the attack, and just as importantly, who did not conduct the attack, how many casualties there were, which chemical agents were used, etc with a "high confidence" ? But they still can't tell us anything about Benghazi where we apparently had dozens of CIA agents on the ground? So, we're supposed to trust their word now? How many times has this administration lied to us?

Barack's Brother is Founder of the Muslin Brotherhood.

By a Proud American

Barack has been funneling billions of dollars to the Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt and ordered Louis Lerner to grant the Brotherhood non-profit status via the IRS. This in addition to donating billions to Muslin Madrases in the United States for their mosques, and he claims the power to do so.¹

Barack has left a wide trail of:

1. contempt for the American people from the 9/11 Twin Towers destruction, to

2. blocking development of our tremendous national resources that could bring us out of the Barack-induced recession from

3. banning drilling, cancellation of the Canadian pipe-line,

4. refusal to grant permission to develop our vast oil and natural gas resources,

5. going to bed or merely playing cards while our ambassador and his team were massacred in Benghazi, thus defying the long-standing policy of “leave none behind”,

6. denying U.S. Corporations the right to non-profit status while

7. granting his Muslim buddies unquestioned non-profit status retroactively for over 2 years, (8) changing the U.S. Culture and its sense of independence, freedom and caring about out neighbors in time of need, as well of a sense of

   (9) loss for our personal privacy,

   (10) choice of health care and/or

   (11) well-being.

The U.S. Constitution demands representative government. This is too much for Barack to stand.

(12)HE IS A DICTATOR, NOT OUR REPRESENTATIVE!!!

13. He claims the right to plunge us into a war supporting his brother-in-law and risking possible boots on the ground midst nerve gas, as well as

14. the future destruction of America's future. Why? Because

15. he claims that he has the right to plunge the U.S. Into a war with Syria when there is LITTLE OF NOTHING IN IT FOR US!!!

16. You Barack are not an American! You hate us and have sworn to plunge it into the 17^th century so deeply that it may never recover!

17. Even your wedding ring declares Allah as the only true God.

18. We gave you every chance to prove yourself. YOU HATE AMERICA. Well, fella, the feeling is mutual. You have done nothing but earn total and absolute contempt in return!

19. It's time. IMPEACH BARACK!!! and send him back to the the world country he came from, never to return!

20. No more Barack, No More!

###

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

The EU has signed on and only needs the US, China and India to agree to disclose data and embrace the pay to pollute carbon scheme. What a load of BS that airlines would pay for their carbon footprint that exceeds some limit set by a committee and to pass on the cost to the customers, which essentially makes it a world wide tax.

In addition to that tax our own EPA has delayed the increase in alternative fuel requirement for the US gasoline producers, which also require them to buy carbon credits traded as a commodity. Trading carbon credits are a money making scheme for those who have pushed the carbon credit and trading Ponzi scheme on the world. It would be an amazing story if it were fiction, but it is true. The western world has agreed to pay fines for carbon pollution and the men who designed and pushed the system will make billions. What a scam and a huge waste of money in the form of penitence and a world tax.

This is but one of the pledges that Obama has made to fight pollution in the US and world wide. It also re-distributes western wealth.

Add these taxes onto the nation and company carbon credit trading Ponzi schemes and you have a complete web of money making wealth re-distribution load of BS. People like AL Gore and George Soros own the trading companies and billions will be made brokering all of these various carbon credits. 10 Trillion dollars a year could be made if the US joins the world in this program. Always follow the money! No one could make something like this up and they have sold the world on it via the Kyoto and other global warming treaties. These also require alternative energy which is not commercial so it does drive up costs and diverts more tax dollars to various groups, e.g., ethanol, wind mill and solar panels producers.

 The US should denounce these schemes use all of natural resources and let the market place develop alternative energy as it becomes economically viable. WE have hundreds of years of resources and these world wide taxes and exchanges are nothing but money, power and control for the ones who control them.

If the US will drop these and use our resources jobs will return with lower energy costs. Perhaps some of these people want to see less jobs and a weaker US?

One day action is required ASAP and the next a week or so delay is a good thing. I think Kerry makes a great politician after his years of training of being on all sides of any issue.