BluegrassBulletin.com

Religion Of Peace Update: Pay Tax Or Die

From Turley:

The Muslim Brotherhood has continued its crackdown on Christians and has now implemented a tax or Jizya for Christian Copts who do not agree to convert to Islam. Based on Koran 9:29, Christians are being told in Dalga that they must pay jizya or tribute to their Muslim overlords as described in the Koran.

The same demand has been seen among Syrian rebels who reportedly have gave a shopkeeper three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax on non-Muslims or be killed with his family. The same practice has been noted in Iraq with Islamic militants.

You see, the goal of radical Islam is not to live in harmony with the rest of the world, but to take over the world, convert everyone to Islam or kill them and their families.

We are at war with this movement.  Keep that straight.

Who Convinced Who? Obama's Speech Met By Rand Paul

EDITORIAL

President Obama gave a silly speech in which he basically called upon the United States to do nothing about the chemical weapons used upon innocent civilians by Syria's Assad.  It was a mouth full of mush after a week of watching any semblance of leadership drain from his presidency.

Then Rand Paul went on FoxNews to immediately proclaim that the president didn't convince him that America needed to use force in Syria in reaction to the chemical weapon use.  But Obama didn't call for force, in fact he asked Congress to not vote on his earlier request for the use of force so as to allow some sort of brokered deal to be worked out with the help of Moscow.

So who convinced who?  Or is this not about action, but about politics?

Bret Baier at FoxNews asked Rand what he would do, assuming he was talking to President Paul.  Rand said he liked the premise of that question.  He then went off and said what he wouldn't do, admitting that what to do was a much tougher question.

Obama said much the same thing.  He had just said that the use of chemical weapons was horrible.  Rand agreed.  Obama said that the world is less safe when dictators get by with things like this.  Rand didn't disagree.

Obama said that the interests of America and our friends in the region are threatened by instability.  Rand seemed to agree, calling for greater "sta-bility".

Obama said that when men like Assad and his allies in Iran see that they can get by with using weapons of mass destruction and that the USA does nothing, that the threat of harm to us increases.

On this point Rand said he wasn't convinced.  He drew the line at the notion that American engagement would have the desired result of trimming back the intentions and/or capabilities of nations like Syria and Iran to use WMD's against us or our allies.  Rand said that on this point he was not convinced.

So who convinced you?

There are many reasons why we should not take military action as requested by the President against Syria.  Chief among my reasons is that the commander in charge of that action doesn't have the balls to fight to win. 

Many who oppose Obama's plan are still advocates of "pre-emptive strikes" when our national interests are threatened.  History shows that allowing rogue leaders to "get by with" bad behavior emboldens them. 

Many among us still consider America to be a Christian nation, and that we must go to the aid and assistance of those suffering human rights violations, anywhere in the world. 

While Rand's form of non-interventionist foreing policy has its supporters, many Americans do not believe that we are an island unto ourselves.  They see every human being as a brother or a sister, all children of one God.  Liberty is not free just because it has come cheaply in our lifetime.  To many foreign policy is not about our riches, it's about doing what is morally right.

But every misbehavior doesn't deserve the death penalty.  And as history tells us, sure as hell we cannot merely slap the wrist of a murderous dictator and send him squealing into submission.  Opposition to Obama's plan even among the more hawkish then seems to be based upon the belief that neither the commander, nor the mission itself deserves our support.

On the other hand, it is a legitimate question to ask, how much closer to nuclear weapon delivery capabilities are we going to let Iran get?  Are we going to arm the Syrian rebels and help the Al Qaeda wing of that opposition to win battles in which they might acquire Assad's chemical weapons to unleash against us on some future date?

Many agree with Rand, we can't be sure who the good guys are.  But for a lot of Americans the problem seeems to be that we do know who the bad guys are, we know where they are and we know that they are plotting our demise and yet we don't seem to be doing anything about them.

Where a lot of Americans will depart from Rand's philosophy is over what to do about the guys we know are bad and who are in fact threatening our interests.  It seems very clear that don't need Congress to declare war in this context.  We are already at war, it is an ongoing war and the enemy is Radical Islam.

Radical Islam is a political movement determined to take over the world.  In that way it is no different than Hitler's National Socialist movement.

No, Radical Islam is not confined to one nation, or one national leader.  It goes by many names, it is a patchwork coalition of groups fighting with terrorist tactics and guerrilla movements.  And this enemy is well funded, organized, determined and undeterred by our panty waisted military efforts to date.  We know who the leaders are, we know where they are, we know where they get their funding.  If we want to fight THAT war, and win, a lot of frustrated Americans would say we need to get busy.

With regard to Obama's Syrian adventurism America seems to be saying no, and in their own way siding with Rand. 

But as it relates to the larger war on terrorism Americans may not be as "non-interventionist" at their core as Rand might interpret our current uneasiness with Obama's plan to indicate.

In fact, on this anniversary of 9-11, when it comes to taking military action to end the threat of Radical Islam once and for all, Rand and Obama both might be surprised to find that a "silent majority" of Americans is ready to say....LET'S ROLL!

8 Year Old "Bride" Raped To Death By 40 Year Old "Husband"

This is what you get when you follow the teachings of a pedophile prophet:

An 8-year-old Yemeni girl has become the latest victim of the Religion of Pieces.  Harwan, the little girl, lived in the tribal area of Hardh in northwestern Yemen, near the Saudi border.  Her family married Harwan to a bridegroom approximately five times as old as she was.  He insisted on his marital rights on their wedding night.  These marital rights included tearing Harwan’s genitals so that she bled to death.[Gateway Pundit]

An 8-year-old Yemeni girl has become the latest victim of the Religion of Pieces.  Harwan, the little girl, lived in the tribal area of Hardh in northwestern Yemen, near the Saudi border.  Her family married Harwan to a bridegroom approximately five times as old as she was.  He insisted on his marital rights on their wedding night.  These marital rights included tearing Harwan’s genitals so that she bled to death. - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/8-year-old-yemeni-child-bride-raped-to-death-on-wedding-night-by-40-year-old-bridegroom/#sthash.Esz0v914.dpuf

Krauthammer: Obama's Incompetent Syria Fiasco

Once again Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head. He says that Obama's actions make it very clear that he wants no part of Syria.  Krauthammer cites Obama's lack of effort to do anything about Assad until the red line comment forced him to.  Then, Sir Charles says, Obama isn't sure what to do next.

Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:“I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

– Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sept. 3.

We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.

Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world – and Bashar al-Assad in particular – that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.

What then is the purpose?

Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets? [Krauthammer Opinion Enquirer]

While I have personally been advocating for more than a year that we take some action to assist the innocent people in Syria being slaughtered by their own government, I now tend to agree that the greatest danger of taking action is that the commander who would be in charge is totally incompetent.  It would be like trusting a gun to a toddler.

Taking no action has the potential for bad consequences, not the least of which is the real possibility that we will be tested again.  But giving the keys to the war machine to Obama is far more reckless.

Rush Limbaugh: Growing Evidence Obama Behind Syrian Chem Attack

It will be a day or so before the full measure of his satire can be discerned but Rush Limbaugh says that there is growing evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria which Obama says crossed his red line was in fact launched by opposition forces and perhaps has Barack Obama's fingerprints on it framing Assad.

But Rush isn't alone.  A pretty well researched article at The Right Scoop has much more evidence on this.  You should read it.

Well Isn't That Special: British Companies Sold Chem Weapon Components To Syria

The video below is a bit over generalized, but the information is essentially correct.  The British government did authorize various companies to sell chemical components of Sarin gas directly to Assad.  What components?  One was Sodium Flouride, you know, the stuff in your tap water.

Of course potassium flouride is not in toothpaste as far as I can tell and Britain did not authorize the sale of Sarin gas. In fact, Sarin gas is so unstable that it has a shelf life of only a few days. So the idea that flouride is a chemical weapon is silly, and so is the notion that tap water is a chemical weapon silly, but......that the British did in fact know that these chemicals were used in the production of chemical weapons and allowed the sale of the components to Syria AFTER the uprising, does at least offer one explanation why the British Parliament wouldn't give the Prime Minister permission to participate in bombing.

Syria: What's It Really All About?

EDITORIAL

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.

Syria: Politics Obama Style

President Obama has made the biggest political calculation of his life on Syria. John Kerry has stated the issue to be whether the USA can be both respected and feared in the future when it comes to standing strong in favor of human rights. The President has handed the hot potato to Congress where Republicans control the House.

Will the USA take military action to punish Assad for using chemical weapons or not? It is now a question of Congress's resolve, not the President.

His move is calculated to further divide the GOP by inflaming TEA party non-interventionist types against presumably more hawkish establishment types. Since the Democrats in Congress are likely to also split, a resolution authorizing military action will only come by a coalition of establishment R's and Obama's D's, adding further fuel to the TEA party argument that the establishment GOP is no better than the far left.

And what is at stake in this political calculation by our President? Our reputation as a nation and our standing in the world for one thing. Plus, of course, don't forget that the military-industrial interests in the nation will be looking to see who is on their side when it comes to funneling money into campaigns next year.

You think this is about Syria, or its people or human rights? Think again. It's about politics, Obama style.

Unintended Consequences Out Of Syria?

Having delayed our efforts to help the victims of the Assad regime fight off his oppression earlier we are now in a position where the POTUS is about to engage in unilaterally staged armed aggression against the Assad regime, an effort which might be helpful to Al Qaeda.  But that's not the worst of it.

Obama came to power under the mantra of "Bush lied, people died."  That mindset had its roots in the belief that there were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" found in Iraq and that therefore the invasion and the loss of American lives was a fraud.

But do you remember the news reports of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq just before the invasion heading to Syria?  And do you remember the reports that Saddam Hussein had secreted his WMD's out of Iraq in advance of our coming?  And do you remember his refusal to allow inspections?

Well here's one for you.  What if Obama does in fact "go in" to Syria and finds that the chemical weapons which John Kerry confirms were used, were the WMD's from Iraq?

Who'd be the fraud now?

WHOA! Hold The Horses! Does Obama Have A Secret Agenda Behind Bombing Syria?

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 wait.  The mess in Benghazi was probably a cover-up for the USA illegally supplying arms to Syrian rebels.  And as it turns out those rebels are probably Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood.

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.

We know for example that the rebels are killing children.  And even Vladmir Putin warned the US that the rebels are not the kind of people we want to be doing business with.

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.

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. - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/iran-israel-will-be-first-victim-if-forces-strike-syria/#sthash.vJf8POpX.dpuf