Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Gen. Michael Hayden: Assad Army Weakened Just by US Threat of Action
"He's dispersed his forces, he's camouflaged his forces, he's hidden his forces. That means he can't use his forces," Gen. Michael Hayden said Monday on CNN.
That said, the political fracturing that has evolved in the West while President Barack Obama has threatened action without actually taking any has weakened the impact of that threat, Hayden said.
"So if our purpose here is to show resolve, we can do it physically. I just don't know that the psychic effect now is going to be all that we wanted it to be," Hayden told CNN.
Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies are going to want to show resolve, too, Hayden said. "So I would expect one of those actors, particularly the Iranians, engineering some sort of response. Once you start this, it's hard to control it."
Hayden said he supports taking action, but that the limited "one and done" firing of Tomahawk missiles into the area won't likely end U.S. involvement.
"Once you start using heat, blast and fragmentation to text messages to another leader things can get out of control," he said.
"Our strategic reach weapon is air power and those Tomahawk missiles with the fleet in the eastern Mediterranean," Hayden said. "Their strategic reach weapon is Hezbollah. And they could then use Hezbollah to attack Americans, American interests in the region, and perhaps as far as North America."
Via: Newsmax
Continue Reading....
WATCH: Greg Gutfeld's Hilarious Speech At The Defending The Dream Summit
Via: Fox News
Continue Reading....
Lee, Cruz cheer ‘defund Obamacare’ petition benchmark
Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes
OVERVIEW
Obama Reduces 2014 Pay Hike for U.S. Troops, Still Fighting in Afghanistan
The announcement came on Friday afternoon, at the start of the long Labor Day weekend, in a letter to Congress.
"I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation over the past decade of war," President Obama wrote to congressional leaders. "As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints faced by Federal agencies."
Obama said he has decided to "exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent" for members of the military.
"This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2014 Budget and will not materially affect the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services," Obama wrote.
Via: CNS News
Continue Reading....
ROSS PEROT FOUNDATION DONATES $1 MILLION TO SCANDAL-HIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
The Ross Perot Foundation has provided a $1 million gift to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Texas following the abortion giant’s payment of $4.3 million for a settlement in a Medicaid fraud case.
For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health. Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control, scientifically-based education, breast health exams, and basic life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.
Kerry on Obama Attacking Syria: 'He Has Right to Do That No Matter What Congress Does'
Boehner: 'I'm Going to Support the President's Call for Action' in Syria
Laura Ingraham Mauls ‘Neo-Cons’ Supporting Syria: Not ‘Another Ill-Conceived, Undefined War’
Allen West to Congress: Don’t let Obama make you the scapegoat for Syria strikes
Continue Reading...
DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz: U.S. has 'dozens' of allies
Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes
Exclusive poll for The Independent sends clear message as David Cameron resists pressure for second vote
The Iraq War has turned the British public against any military intervention in the Middle East, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent.
By a margin of two-to-one, the British people oppose President Barack Obama’s plan for military strikes against the Assad regime and say that the UK should keep out of all conflicts in the region for the foreseeable future.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg yesterday rejected growing all-party pressure from MPs and peers for another Commons vote on whether British forces should join air strikes in Syria, only four days after MPs rejected the Prime Minister’s plan to take part.
But Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said the Government could revisit the question if circumstances changed “very significantly”.
Opinion at Westminster appears to be shifting in favour of action as the Obama administration produces more evidence about the horrific chemical weapons attack on a suburb near Damascus.
But Mr Cameron shows no signs of risking a second humiliating Commons defeat. Labour will not propose a second vote unless there is a “very significant” change, such as al-Qa’ida obtaining chemical weapons in Syria.
Obama's Summer Slump
He is now beginning an autumn in which conflicts that have festered sullenly for years — in Syria and on Capitol Hill — are poised for climactic resolution.
The next several weeks offer a chance for Obama to shift the direction of a presidency in which he has been slowly bleeding both personal popularity and, more importantly, the intangible mystique of power — one that flows from a president’s ability to let domestic and foreign rivals alike know they will either bend to his will or pay a severe penalty.
Interviews over the holiday weekend found surprise — and, among sympathetic Democrats, widespread dismay — at how Obama has handled some recent episodes. These Democrats, many of whom spoke on background to avoid a public confrontation with their own leader, included members of Congress and several people who have either worked for Obama or consulted closely with his West Wing.
In the fifth year of his presidency, some of these observers say, he is making choices that are reminiscent of the missteps some predecessors have made during their awkward early months in power:
• Through public statements and private leaks, Obama and his subordinates have opened an unusually wide window into the president’s internal deliberations.
In Washington and around the world, both friends and foes can easily read his doubts about his own Syria policy and witness his agonizing over the use of military force in real time. His decision over the Labor Day weekend to seek congressional approval for a limited military strike on Syria came after administration officials earlier signaled that reprisals for use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad’s regime were imminent, perhaps just hours away. On Capitol Hill, the delay is being interpreted in both parties, not as evidence of a principled belief in constitutional authority, but as Obama’s attempt to share ownership if his Syria decisions go awry.
Via: Politico
Continue Reading...
Kerry's cosy dinner with Syria's 'Hitler': Secretary of State and the man he likened to German dictator
- Kerry pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009
- Assad and Kerry lean in towards each other, deep in conversation
- Picture taken in February 2009 when Kerry led a delegation to Syria
- Kerry yesterday compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein
US-BRAZIL TENSIONS RISE AFTER NEW NSA SPY REPORT
PUSHING FOR SYRIA ACTION, OBAMA STARES DOWN PUTIN...ON GAYS
In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”
Monday, September 2, 2013
A vote of no confidence is in order
What with our president having received the Nobel Peace Prize and leading us in a pivot to Asia, I guess the White House wants to pretend that the humiliating debacle America is suffering — in front of the world — isn’t happening. What’s wrong with asking Congress for authorization to go to war? The Obama apologencia will tell us it is what the president meant to do all along. They will tell us things are going according to plan. What’s the rush? But no, for the first time ever, an American president is saying, “The buck does NOT stop here.”
The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.
Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.
The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.
The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.
The only possible remedy — and one that is probably impossible for this president’s ideology or ego to allow — would be for him to demand that Congress return early from their summer break, deliver a prime-time speech before a joint session, win the vote and then unleash a blistering punishment. This is probably the only way to salvage some of the president’s credibility and give Iran pause.
Unless the members of the national security team who surround Obama are so addicted to the personal grandeur and perks of office, surely someone will resign rather than be a part of the humiliation and harm this president is doing.
It is too early to take today’s headlines and extrapolate out to the next election; and national security issues don’t drive votes. I’ve resisted making 2014 election predictions, except to acknowledge that the natural midterm political cycle in 2014 favors Republicans. Fourteen months is a lifetime in politics blah blah blah, but the tectonic plates are beginning to shift and the first sign of a wave election could be forming. If the big issues of peace and prosperity are going to matter, what do the Democrats have to say for themselves?
What aspect of the economy instills confidence — never mind enthusiasm — for the future? Where in the world is America stronger as a result of the Obama presidency? Nothing is getting better for the Democrats.
CITING OBAMACARE, 40,000 LONGSHOREMEN QUIT THE AFL-CIO
In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation's largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation.
In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the disillusion of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the AFL-CIO's support of Obamare.
"We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along," McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.
The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their "Cadillac" healthcare plan.
The Longshoreman leader said, "President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans and at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits." But, regardless of that promise, the President has pushed for just such a tax and Trumka and the AFL-CIO bowed to political pressure lining up behind Obama's tax on those plans.
McEllrath also went on to say that they support stronger immigration reform than the AFL-CIO is supporting.
One ILWU committeeman was even harsher on both the AFL-CIO and the President. ILWU Coast Committeeman Leal Sundet criticized the AFL-CIO telling LaborNotes.com that Trumka was marching "in lockstep" with Obama both on the "Cadillac healthcare tax" as well as immigration.
Sundet slammed Obama's immigration plan saying it is "designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship."
Private sector unions have fallen to an all time low participation rate in the US workforce. Unionized workers now account for only 11.3 percent of the US workforce.
Labor union frustration boils over with president on ObamaCare
Unions are frustrated the Obama administration hasn’t responded to their calls for changes to ObamaCare.
Labor has watched with growing annoyance as the White House has backed ObamaCare changes in response to concerns from business groups, religious organizations and even lawmakers and their staffs.
They say they don’t understand why their concerns so far have fallen of deaf ears.
“We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Unite Here President D. Taylor told The Hill.
It's an issue that Obama may have to face when he speaks to the AFL-CIO convention a week after Labor Day.
Most unions backed ObamaCare’s passage, but labor argues provisions in the law could cut employee hours, unfairly tax their plans and force workers off their union health plans into the law’s potentially more costly insurance exchanges.
The key issue are union members who many up many of the roughly 20 million people who use non-profit multi-employer “Taft-Hartley” health plans.
Unions want the administration to change ObamaCare so that those plans are treated as qualified health plans that can earn tax subsidies. Under the administration's interpretation of the law, the multi-employer plans are not eligible for the subsidies.
Without those subsidies, employers may have the incentive to drop the plans and force orkers onto the insurance exchanges.
“The Democrats have completely given the store away to the for-profit industry,” Taylor said. “Without any question, we have a scenario set up that ObamaCare has turned all the money over to the for-profit plans and the non-profit plans will fade away.”
Sunday, September 1, 2013
John McCain: Great Britain ‘No Longer a World Power’
Via: NewsbustersJAY LENO: Why would the U.N. not say, "You know, Senator McCain, that's a good idea. Why don't we go bomb the runway?" Why doesn't the U.N, no soldiers involved. Nobody is being killed. You're just blowing up land. Why doesn't the U.N. go for this?SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZONA): The U.N. has turned into an organization tha, in my estimation in many ways is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Right now, the U.N. is in there ascertaining whether this was a chemical attack. And I think it's fairly obvious, since you see these bodies stacked up with not a a mark on them, and the head of the United Nations has said, "But, we won't apportion blame." What? You're not going to say who is responsible for it? That's your tax dollars at work.LENO: Why won't they say?MCCAIN: Because they want to be neutral. They want to be neutral about everything. And I feel badly about the British. They're our dear friends, but they're no longer a world power. It's just a fact of life.
Continue Reading....
Popular Posts
-
FRANKFORT – A Republican attorney I know sees the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage and the reaction in Kentucky – where s...
-
Newly released documents show Department of Justice officials, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials were...
-
Bill O'Reilly: The vilification of Donald Trump over illegal immigration. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking P...
-
When Sydnie Shuford and her husband took their son, Jackson, to see Donald Trump’s speech at a football stadium in Mobile, Ala. on Frida...
-
And then some. Via: Weasel Zippers
-
Pat Buchanan: 'Interracial violence is overwhelmingly black- on-white' Last Friday, Christopher Lane, a 22-year-old Austral...