Take the time to watch this and enjoy the feeling of how conspiracy theories are constructed.
Take the time to watch this and enjoy the feeling of how conspiracy theories are constructed.
The option to delete account information has become a staple of online services, from Facebook to Amazon. But HealthCare.gov isn’t a private-sector business transaction. And on the federal health insurance portal, people for at least the next few weeks will have to create a basic account even to browse health plan options. POLITICO]For those who’ve busted through glitches on the federal Obamacare insurance website to create an account, there’s no clear, obvious way for consumers to delete the accounts if they choose — at least not in the current incarnation. [
Cynics will tell you that Obama's only reason for going into Syria would be to make himself look good after having made the "red line" speech. Haters will tell you that Obama wants to do everything possible to collapse the US economy and another war is a quick way to do that. But what is the Syria issue really about?
First, when you hear the word Syria, think Iran. Assad is the bait Iran has laid in the Middle East to entice us into armed conflict. The goal is a war in which Iran can excuse its planned attack on Israel and other interests in the region of importance to the United States.
Second, much of the Middle East is aligned with our interests. Despite the homegrown terrorism of Osama Bin Laden, we are still very entangled with Saudi Arabia. We have friends in Turkey and Jordan. Iran is the bully thug of the region and the more stable governments would like nothing more than to see the Iranian's brought to heel. While our friends don't want war to disrupt their comfy lives, they would welcome somebody putting a boot on Iran's throat and Syria is as close as it gets.
Third, with Iraq and Afghanistan winding down buhzillionaires who you never hear about are facing loss of revenue from sales of everything from food, fuel, and clothing to weapons, machinery and vehicles. They have a very well funded lobby in Washington that is charged with the duty to see that government contracts for their goods continue to get signed. In otherwords, forces behind the scenes at home are pushing war.
Fourth, Obama has a political game to play. And a show of military strength has always helped give presidents more political capital. By putting the GOP right smack dab in the middle of the debate whether to take action or not, Obama can score points, divide his opponents and create political chaos.
Fifth, what's at stake is the world's view of America's tolerance of dangerous activities like using chemical weapons, amassing nuclear weapons, threatening global terrorism and Islamic Jihad. Iran is creating a recruiting and training station for these activities and has virtually declared war on the rest of the world. Many countries are worried what might come to them out of Iran. The United States is viewed as the least tolerant of terrorism having 9-11 as a reason to have declared war on it. The world is looking to see if the USA blinks on this one.
And next, there is of course the issue of human rights for which the USA still stands as a beacon of hope. Do we have credibility, or do we engage in selective enforcement of human rights only when it serves our needs. No, we are not the world's policemen, but we are the world's savior as our fathers proved near the middle of the last century.
What's the Syria issue really all about? These things and any other sales pitch for one viewpoint or the other which will be trotted out as America debates what we stand for, what we stand against and who stands with who.
Do you remember the snubs that President Obama directed at Israel? And of course you know about the POTUS having some deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, right? Well how does this information square with all of the other information and might it reveal a hidden agenda for Obama's plans to invade Syria?
A senior Iranian lawmaker says Israel will be the “first victim” of any U.S.-led military strike on Syria, predicting that President Bashar Assad’s regime would fight back against the Jewish state.[FOX]
Now the chemical weapons attack inside Syria is reported to be a sort of "false flag" event with perhaps the rebels having used the chemicals rather than the Assad people.
So putting all of this together there is the outside chance that what Obama has done is arm Al-Qaeda rebels via the Muslim Brotherhood, inside of Syria and waiting until they had the means to take over or maybe, at the very least, fire upon Israel as soon as the US strikes the match by bombing somewhere inside Syria.
Might it then be argued that Obama would be complicit in any attack on Israel? And judging by his behavior and his connections to the enemies of Israel, is this really too much of a stretch?
There are a lot of dots. Connect them however you can I suppose.
Remember the photo of Barack Obama in the "situation room" staring intently at what we were to presume was a real time video of the raid on Osama Bin Laden's lair? Remember how the President then strutted to a microphone and took full credit for the operation? We might just have been fooled into accepting a fraud.
It now turns out that Obama and his buddy Reggie Love were playing cards during the event, which only adds fuel to the claim that the photo of the POTUS was a fake. It's obvious that the post-press-conference photos were staged.
I've been corrected in the past for referring to Ron Paul and Rand Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism". I've been told they are "non-interventionists" not "isolationists". I was unaware that the later term is considered to be a slur "intended to link the target with the ignominious record of Americans in the 1930s who were slow to recognize the threat from Nazi Germany." [POLITICO]
In the POLITICO piece the author suggests that there is a concerted effort to paint Rand as an "isolationist".
"Remember when your older brothers and sisters used to prank you by warning about the monster under your bed? In a similar way, Washington’s war hawks are gearing up to scare you with another phantom devil: isolationism.
If you feel like you’ve already been hearing increasing warnings about isolationism, you’re right. Pundits, journalists, and now a whole new think-tank initiative are warning about this dangerous ideology."
But listen to how the defense of Rand is being developed. Do you see any similarities to the kind of strategy used by the Obama team?
"You should know three things about these claims. The first is that they are nonsense. Rand Paul, Rep. Justin Amash, and other skeptics of reckless foreign wars and secret government spying on Americans aren’t isolationists. They’re prudent conservatives who take the Constitution seriously and rose to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration, which destroyed the GOP advantage on national security and provided a good example of how not to conduct foreign policy."
First of all they didn't "rise to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration". They rose to power in reaction to the Obama administration.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that in hindsight George W. Bush will be seen as creating "wreckage" in foreign policy at all. That's Obama's line.
America was firmly behind President Bush, cheering him on in Iraq and Afghanistan after Osama Bin Laden took down the twin towers nine months into his first term. We were thrilled to be hunting down terrorists and "bringing them to justice." Revisionist history will not work here.
Furthermore, the POLITICO piece makes another gaffe when trying to make the point that a more globally aware foreign policy is the wrong course to pursue.
"Coincidentally, perhaps, the third thing you should know is that the people trying to create anxiety about isolationism favor an interventionist military policy that has fallen out of favor with the public. After the twin disasters of Iraq and now Afghanistan, they are pawing the ground for more wars in Syria and Iran. Accordingly, they are trying to claim “internationalism” for themselves, so that they can look prudent and modest — in comparison with the ideology that failed to recognize the threat from Adolf Hitler."
I'm not convinced that protecting America from the growing threat of radical Islam has "fallen out of favor with the public". Even Rand Paul seems to understand that the public is much more inclined to stop the current administration from funding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than to continue pursuing the "hands off" approach that Obama has taken. In fact, I predict that most Americans see the "Arab Spring", riots around the world, Iran's nuclear program and radical Islam as much more of a problem for us now than they did during the George W. Bush terms of office.
I get the distinction between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" but the author of the POLITICO editorial is living in a dream world if he thinks America has lost its more hawkish appetite.
It's not that we don't have the stomach for war anymore, it's just that we've grown tired of fighting wars without quick, decisive, overwhelming victories. We don't like long engagements which suggest that the suppliers of the arms and equipment have lobbied Congress and the president to keep the gravy train for them coming at the expense of American lives and treasure.
Let some little despot rise up and threaten to kill our children and I think you'd find our people very willing to watch us squash him like a bug.
Surely to goodness Rand knows this as well as anybody. And if he doesn't yet, he better learn it. He's runnning for commander in chief of a country that doesn't, and shouldn't, take threats lightly.
It's a bit early for the 2014 races to get full attention, but according the the Washington Post democrats are already worried. Why? Because as the enrollment date for Obamacare this October approaches, the people are growing afraid.
Smart Democrats are beginning to get frantic about the need to suppress the confusion and hide the cost of ObamaCare between now and the 2014 midterm elections. We are just three months away from the October 1st enrollment start date and so far, nothing about the ObamaCare implementation process should be politically encouraging for Democrats. In fact, the more people learn about ObamaCare, the more frightened they become. [Washington Post]
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, David Adams, who seems to delight in being dubbed a "menace" by his political detractors has been doggedly attacking the implementation of Obamacare in the Commonwealth and so far he has been able to fend off the legal wobblings of the Besehear Administration.
Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled this morning against Gov. Steve Beshear's motion to dismiss the second tea party lawsuit filed against him.
Plaintiff David Adams claims the law Beshear is using to justify expanding Medicaid is unconstitutional. Beshear responded that a claim of violation of citizen rights is the same as not alleging "any injury at all."
"The record clearly shows Governor Beshear's attorney argued in court that he doesn't recognize the value of citizens' rights at all," Adams said. "The judge rejected that argument, so now we go on to see if the executive and legislative branches can keep robbing us to buy votes for themselves. I don't think they can." [Kentucky Progress]
An email from a Wikileaks document dump has surfaced in which a private security contractor seems to confirm that former security adviser and now CIA director John Brennan was behind the "witch hunt" of journalists which has blown into a full scale scandal this week turning Obama's press friends against him.
An obscure November 2012 Wikileaks email dump points to former White House counterterrorism adviser and now-CIA chief John Brennan as the person behind the “witch hunt” of journalists who reported unflattering Obama administration leaks.[Breitbart]
We've been on to Brennan for a long time. His role at CIA could very well be Obama's bunker door.
The military has threatened to prosecute soldiers who share their Christian faith with other soldiers equating them with the threat posed by radical groups like the KKK. But at Bagram Air Force Base during the funeral of the Seal Team 6 soldiers who died after having killed Bin Laden, a radical Muslim Cleric spoke.
Now it is strange enough indeed that these brave men who were part of the elite Seal Team that took out enemy number one died in a helicopter crash. And it is bad enough that after the raid on Bin Laden's compound that the White House gave out information about the men who carried out that mission putting targets on their backs.
But did you know that the Obama administration invited a radical Muslim cleric to attend the funeral of the fallen seals at Bagram Air Force base and that HE CURSED THE FALLEN SOLDIERS!!!?
This is beyond unacceptable, it is OUTRAGEOUS!
And there is plenty of anger out there right now over this inexcusable act.
Will anybody in the MSM ask the president about this, point blank?
Two articles at American Thinker make a pretty strong case for the prospect that the Congressional investigation over Benghazi could explode all over the Obama Administration. And it couldn't come at a better time for the GOP. Hillary will be at the center of it all and she is now the front runner for the dems in 2016.
One of the articles points out how the cover up of what took place in Benghazi is a story with Watergate-like implications. But what happened there to begin with might also uncover a very serious set of actions put into place with the full knowledge of Obama and Clinton which might come close to an Iran-Contra type situation.
It would be good for you to read these articles for yourself because, as they point out, very few in the MSM are covering it.