No Mr.President, It Is Actualy Quite Easy To Find Areas Where We are Not Better Off,Thanks To You

We often have asked the question whether politicians are intentionally always lying to us because they think we are too stupid to figure out that they are lying or they really do believe some of the fantasies and lies that constantly come out of their mouths. It is probably a question that will never be answered since I doubt these same politicians will ever admit to lying or being deep in a fantasy world where their sense of reality does not match up with the realities of most Americans.

This question raised itself again when Obama recently made this statement to light of his administration finally coming to an end: “It’s very hard to find an area where we’re not better off than we were before.” Really, does he really believe this or does he think we are too stupid to see the difference in this country across many perspectives between when he took office in early 2009 and today?

Let’s see if we can find a just a few areas where the country and its citizens might not be better off:

• Obama’s budgets and out of control spending doubled the national debt in eight short years to a whoppoing $20 TRILLION, a reality that theoretically added another $32,000 to the debt burden of every man, woman, and child living in the country today. Verdict - not better off.
• The Obama economic recovery has failed to attain the long term historical annual economic growth average in even a single year, making his economic recovery the worst in at least the past hundred years and leaving us extremely vulnerable when the next recession hits. Verdict: not better off.
• There are 13 million more Americans on food stamps/food assistance now than when Obama took office despite being six years removed from the recession and six years into the Obama recovery. Verdict - not better off.
• The labor participation rate is at a four decades low despite being six years into the Obama economic recovery. Verdict - not better off.
• For most of the Obama economic recovery, wages and household income growth have been anemic, both on a real basis and compared to previous economic recoveries. Verdict - not better off.
• African American unemployment rates are still substantially higher than the unemployment rate of any other sector of the work force despite having the first African American President in charge for the past eight years. Verdict - not better off.
• After a two decade downward trend in violent crime and overall crime rates, we are now seeing the trend start to reverse itself in the latter stages of the Obama Presidency. Verdict - not better off.
• The political divisions within this country are much worse than they were just eight years ago with Obama offering no leadership to unite the country around common goals and purposes. Verdict - not better off.
• Heroin addiction and deaths have skyrocketed in the second half of the Obama administration with no proposals or strategies proposed or in place to reverse the trend. Verdict - not better off.
• Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are much closer to fiscal insolvency than when Obama took office since his administration has proposed no solutions for the coming financial crises of these massive government programs. Verdict - not better off.
• Despite spending hundreds of billions of Federal tax dollars over the past eight years to educate our kids, the test performance of our kids against the test performance of kids from other countries continues to be abysmal. Verdict - not better off.
• Despite throwing tens of billions of dollars at crony infested alternative energy companies during this Presidency, we are still looking for some type of economic and societal payback from those same companies, the vast majority of which have gone out of business, taking our tax dollars with them. Verdict - not better off.
• Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to resolve the chaos in Afghanistan, the Taliban now control more of the country than at any time since we we went in 15 years ago. Verdict - not better off.
• Two of our international opponents, Iran and North Korea, are eight years closer to owning nuclear weapons. Verdict - not better off.
• While Islamic terrorist attacks within our borders have not been as devastating in this country since the 9-11 attacks, the frequency of attacks has picked up dramatically which has resulted in many American deaths and casualties from attacks such as the Fort Hood attacks, the Boston Marathon bombers, the Tennessee military recruiting center attack, the Orlando night club siege and massacre, the San Bernardino workplace attack, the recent Minnesota knife attack, the recent related bombings in Chelsea in New York City and Seaside Heights in New Jersey, and many others, both those that have been successful and those that have been thwarted. Verdict - not better off.
• Many of our Constitutional and Bill of Rights rights have been under heavy siege by the political class and this administration in the past eight years including freedom of speech (First Amendment), freedom of religion (First Amendment), freedom of the press (First Amendment), freedom from unnecessary and illegal search (Fourth Amendment), privacy, and the right to bear arms (Second Amendment). Verdict - not better off.
• The Federal government has taken in more taxes than any other government entity in the history of the world and yet Washington politicians still cannot operate a balanced budget. Verdict - not better off.
• Russia and China, two global competitors both militarily and economically, have so much less respect for the will, strength, and standing of the United States since Obama took office that they are actively pursuing military advances around the world without fear of American reprisal. Verdict - not better off.
• The Middle East is in far worse shape than eight years ago with United States’ intrusion into the Syrian civil war making conditions there far worse and Obama’s un-Constitutional declaration of war on Libya has resulted in another broken country that has become a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups. Verdict - not better off.
• In 2014, as he was removing all U.S., troops from Iraq, Obama claimed that we were leaving behind “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant” but which today has been broken into three distinct regions, (Shiite, Sunni/ISIS, and Kurds), which is anything but stable with regular terror attacks and ISIS occupying wide swaths of land, and obviously not self reliant as we have had to send in thousands of U.S. troops to save what remained of the central government. Verdict - not better off.
• After improving slowly but steadily over the past forty years, most Americans, when polled, feel that race relations have deteriorated under the first African American President in our history. Verdict - not better off. 
• Over 20 million Americans now have health insurance vs. prior to the passing of the Obama Care legislation. Verdict - better off if you just measure this top line number. However, if you get underneath this number you find that Obama Care policy premium costs continually go up dramatically, Obama Care deductible costs continually go up dramatically, the vast majority of Obama Care co-ops have already failed with more likely to follow, the majority of those 20 million additionally insured fell into the Medicaid pool that provides low quality, limited access health care and which is riddled with criminal fraud and unsustainable financials, the cost of the entire Obama Care operations has more than doubled from the original estimate with its ten year expected cost is now close $2 TRILLION, health insurance companies are fleeing from the Obama Care policy market since they are losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year from those policies, and the whole Obama Care environment has stifled hiring and economic growth.

With possibly the weak exception of Obama Care, it is actually quite easy to find areas where we are not better off since Obama took office back in January, 2009, despite what ever illusions and fantasies he entertains in his own mind. Quite easy and that is why this administration, which came into being with such high approval ratings, has been such an abysmal failure along just about any dimension imaginable. The end cannot come soon enough.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Fighting Islamic Terrorism In the Wake Of Orlando, Part 3 - The Diplomatic, Humanitarian Solution

A few days ago we took some time to discuss the terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando a few weekends ago. We listed out a number of steps that needed to be taken in the short term, and extending into the long term, that would help prevent similar attacks in the future. These steps required extensive effort on behalf of the government and the Washington political class, something that neither has had the will or ability to do in the past. 

Instead, we get people like Obama and other liberals inside and outside of government that, as always, go to the knee jerk reaction of limiting Americans access to guns. As we pointed out yesterday, the 9-11 attackers did not storm the Twin Towers with AR 15 rifles, they used airplanes to carry their terror plans. The Boston Marathon bombers did not jump into a crowd in Boston and start shooting up the place, they used homemade bombs. Other terrorists here and around the world have used simple knives to kill in the name of radical Islamic terror.

We also pointed out that if a person wanted to carry out a terror attack, any new gun control laws passed by Washington would be nothing more than an inconvenience, if anyone wants a gun in this country, the drug cartels or other organized, and unorganized, criminal entity would be more than willing to make a few bucks by providing such weapons and guns. That is why the many suggestions we provided yesterday to attack the root causes of terrorism are far more important and more likely to be effective than window dressing gun control restrictions.

However, there has to be an overarching strategy to eliminate the terror threat from ISIS long term. While our suggestions from a few days ago would go a long way to help protecting us, a long term strategy to settle down the violence and hatred in the Middle East is required at the highest levels of diplomacy. That is where Obama needs to be concentrating as his Presidency winds down, putting together a long term plan, strategy, and way of life that brings all of the diplomatic players together in a grand coalition and effort that finally eliminates the root cause of the ISIS terror reign.

However, since he seems more interested in changing national bathroom policies, hosting Super Bowl teams at the White House, and hiking around a national park out west, two days ago we started the discussion on what the grand plan might look like, why it would work and how each interested party would have to give a little to get a lot, i.e. the end of the ISIS threat. To that end, we laid out the situational analysis on the ground in the Middle East, focusing on Syria, and what assumptions would go into formulating this overarching strategy.

In proposing this solution and plan, we realize that we are not trained diplomats. We have never held elected office. But we do realize that to have a final plan in any facet of life, you have to have at least a preliminary plan that is tweaked, negotiated, adjusted over time, etc. And since Obama, John Kerry, et al do not appear to have the will or have the ability to develop a plan, they are more than free to start with ours, as laid out below.

As we see it, and as we laid it out two days ago, there are nine major players involved in the mess in Syria with ISIS:

1. ISIS - the most ruthless, heartless, and well financed Islamic terror group ever, currently dominating large parts of Syria and Iraq, composed mostly of Sunni Muslims.
2. The United States - because we stick our noses into everything and the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
3. Syria - or what is left of it, headed up by Assad, a Shiite Muslim.
4. Russia - an ally of Assad.
5. Iran - a Shiite dominated country and ally of Assad.
6. Iraq - a Shiite dominated country and an ally of Assad and Iran.
7. Turkey - bordering Syria, anti-Assad, and an ISIS sympathizer.
8. Saudi Arabia - and other Sunni Muslim Gulf states who are at least ISIS sympathizers.
9. Kurds - Anti-ISIS fighters with the majority of Kurds living in northern Iraq and who want their own country.

Each of these nine players have to be an important piece of the final solution, a solution that gives everyone of them something but gives none of them everything.

The overarching strategy and sequence of events goes as follows:

• A multi-national coalition of military forces is created with the sole purpose of defeating and dismantling ISIS, similar to what the first Bush presidency put together to free Kuwait from Iraq 25 years ago.
• Part of this military effort involves creating a safe zone for refugees in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, currently occupied by ISIS.
• This safe zone would expand as ISIS is pushed back from its current borders.
• As the safe zone is expanding, the United Nations steps in, with financing from every other country, to provide shelter and food and to start the reconstruction process. 
• Once ISIS is defeated militarily, a new country is created out of the northern part of Iraq and eastern part of Syria and run by Sunni Muslims.
• Assad is allowed to stay in power in Syria but with a greatly reduced country that is Shiite dominated.
• Russia would still have access to the Syrian ports that they crave.
• Iran, Russia, and Iraq are allowed to build a Shiite pipeline for their oil and natural gas through whatever part of what used to be Syria they want.
• The Saudis and other Sunni Gulf nations are also allowed to build a Sunni pipeline for their oil and natural gas through whatever part of what used to be Syria they want.
• A to-be-determined tariff would be placed on any oil and natural gas that flows through either pipeline and be used to help rebuild the cities and infrastructure in both the new Sunni nation and parts of old Iraq that were destroyed by the ISIS fight.
• As reward for helping to fight ISIS, the Kurds would have their own country carved out of territory in northern Iraq.
• As all of this is going on, the new Sunni nation would be a United Nations protectorate as it regains its ability to be a functioning government and society.
• Free passage back to the area would be provided for all refugees that fled the civil war and the ISIS terrorist group.

Okay, who wins and who loses under a diplomatic coup like this:

- ISIS is a big loser since it no longer exists with most, if not all, of its fighters and leaders killed or put on trial for crimes against humanity.

- The United States reengages militarily in the Middle East, historically not a good thing, costing America more money and lives. But its military mission would be focused solely on the defeat of ISIS and the short term protection of this new Sunni nation until a United Nations military force takes over permanently. In return, the U.S. lessens its refugee problem and associated costs, freeing up these costs to boost our homeland security, and reducing the threat of domestic and foreign terrorism on our shores. In addition, it helps destroy the ISIS terrorist organization that it had helped create.

- Assad gets to stay alive and in power but with a greatly reduced nation, territory, and power but the threat of ISIS on his remaining power and territory eliminated.

- Russia still has an ally, Assad in power even if the size of his country is greatly reduced, and still has access to the Syrian ports, but would have to face the reality that the Saudis and other Gulf Sunni nations do get their own pipeline for their oil and natural gas resources.

- Iran gets to keep their Shiite ally, Assad, in power, they get their Shiite pipeline through Syria but their pipeline has to pay a tariff to help finance the reconstruction of the devastated areas in the new Sunni nation and Iraq and they also have to compete with the Sunni pipeline.

- Iraq gets to keep their Shiite ally, Assad in power, they get rid of ISIS which has been terrorizing the country for years, they get a Shiite pipeline through Syria but their pipeline has to pay a tariff to help finance the reconstruction of the devastated areas in the new Sunni nation and Iraq and they also have to compete with the Sunni pipeline.

- Turkey gets to help create a Sunni friendly nation on its borders vs. having Assad’s Syria on its border but has to contend with a new nation on its other border that was created for the hated Kurds. Obviously, something else on the positive side of the ledger would have to be thrown in to get their support.

- The Saudis and other Sunni Gulf nations get to see the power of their arch enemy Assad greatly reduced and get to build their Sunni pipeline through Syria but but their pipeline has to pay a tariff to help finance the reconstruction of the devastated areas in the new Sunni nation and Iraq and they also have to compete with the Shiite pipeline.

- The Kurds get their own country but lose any oil industry subsidies they were receiving by being a part of Iraq, they would have to accept Kurd immigrants from any other country, and would have stringent conditions imposed on them to discourage any Kurd terrorists attacks within Turkey as what has happened in the past.

As you can see, in our proposed solution, every player gets something they want but also gets things they do not want or things that they cannot have. That is the art of negotiation and diplomacy. You get your own pipeline but your enemy/competitor also gets a pipeline. You get to stay in power but in power over a greatly reduced territory. As you can see above, everyone of the players gets something positive but we have highlighted the BUT in all of their arrangements, meaning they did not get everything. But everyone gets the elimination of ISIS which makes the world a much safer place to be.

This solution also provides a wonderful opportunity for the United Nations to prove that it is a viable and positive organization for humanity. I do not think I can remember anytime in my life when the United Nations was so impotent and so unnecessary in the face of a dangerous world. 

If it could become the force that unites the world and starts the rebuilding of societies in war torn Syria and Iraq, providing humanitarian aid, providing safe zones, helping to rebuild whole cities, stationing military forces to help implement the diplomatic solution, it would regain some of its credibility and show it continues to deserve our tax dollars. If it fails, then I really do not see a use for it going forward since I would dare anyone to show me how it justifies its huge budget year in and year out without providing any tangible results.

That’s our proposed plan. You may not like it but at least it’s a plan, which puts us eons ahead of Obama and John Kerry. Our plan can be adjusted, tweaked, implemented in stages and then adjusted some more, it is tangible. Obama and Kerry have nothing that can be started, adjusted, tweaked, or what is tangible. 

But at least we are having public bathroom discussions as a result of the Obama administration. At least the Super Bowl champs, the Denver Broncos, got to visit Obama at the White House. At least the President got to visit our natural parks out west. 

Obama is all about building his narcissistic legacy. What better legacy opportunity than this, to bring peace and harmony to a major cesspool of terror and destruction? Even Jimmy Carter pulled something off like this decades ago when he got Israel and Egypt to play nice together, that effort still lives on today. Succeeding in this effort, with or without our plan, would dwarf this Carter success. 

That is what the President should be working on, not the trivial stuff that gives him photo opportunities at every turn. Give us a plan, Mr. President, any plan is better than no plan.

George S. Patton - "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later."

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Fighting Islamic Terrorism In the Wake Of Orlando, Part 2 - Situation Analysis and Long Term Resolution Assumptions

Yesterday we took some time to discuss the terrorist attack at a nightclub in Orlando a few weekends ago. We listed out a number of steps that needed to be taken in the short term, and extending into the long term, that would help prevent similar attacks in the future. These steps require extensive effort on behalf of the government and the Washington political class, something that neither has had the will or ability to do in the past. 

Instead, we get people like Obama and other liberals inside and outside of government that, as always, go to the knee jerk reaction of limiting Americans access to guns. As we pointed out yesterday, the 9-11 attackers did not storm the Twin Towers with AR 15 rifles, they used airplanes to carry their terror plans. The Boston Marathon bombers did not jump into a crowd in Boston and start shooting up the place, they used homemade bombs. Other terrorists here and around the world have used simple knives to kill in the name of terror.

We also pointed out that if a person wanted to carry out a terror attack, any new gun control laws passed by Washington would be nothing more than an inconvenience, if anyone wants a gun in this country, the drug cartels or other organized, and unorganized, criminal entity would be more than willing to make a few bucks by providing such weapons and guns. That is why the many suggestions we provided yesterday to attack the root causes of terrorism are far more important and more likely to be effective than window dressing gun control restrictions.

However, there has to be an overarching strategy to eliminate the terror threat from ISIS long term. While our suggestions from yesterday would go a long way to help protecting us, a long term strategy to settle down the violence and hatred in the Middle East is required at the highest levels of diplomacy. That is where Obama needs to be concentrating as his Presidency winds down, putting together a long term plan, strategy, and way of life that brings all of the diplomatic players together in a grand coalition and effort that finally eliminates the root cause of the ISIS terror reign.

However, since he seems more interested in changing national bathroom policies, hosting Super Bowl teams at the White House, and hiking around a national park out west, let us start the discussion today on what the grand plan might look like, why it would work and how each interested party would have to give a little to get a lot, i.e. the end of the ISIS threat.

In proposing this solution and plan, we realize that we are not trained diplomats. We have never held elected office. But we do realize that to have a final plan in any facet of life, you have to have at least a preliminary plan that is tweaked, negotiated, adjusted over time, etc. And since Obama, John Kerry, et al do not appear to have or have the ability to have a plan, they are more than welcome to start with ours.

1) Part One - Situational Analysis: You cannot resolve any problem without defining where you are today. Same thing with a diplomatic problem and hopefully, a diplomatic solution. As I see it, there are nine major players involved in the mess in Syria with ISIS:

1. ISIS - the most ruthless, heartless, and well financed Islamic terror group ever, currently dominating large parts of Syria and Iraq, composed of Sunni Muslims.
2. The United States - because we stick our noses into everything and the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
3. Syria - or what is left of it, headed up by Assad, a Shiite Muslim.
4. Russia - an ally of Assad.
5. Iran - a Shiite dominated country and ally of Assad.
6. Iraq - a Shiite dominated country and an ally of Assad and Iran.
7. Turkey - bordering Syria, anti-Assad, and an ISIS sympathizer.
8. Saudi Arabia - and other Sunni Muslim Gulf states who are at least ISIS sympathizers if not more.
9. Kurds - Anti-ISIS fighters with the majority of Kurds living in northern Iraq and who want their own country.

Nine different players that can and have had major impacts on the whole Syrian civil war/ISIS rise debacle. But it gets even more confusing when you try to map out visually on how these nine entities interact, resist, or cooperate with each other. The following crude picture tries to capture the multi layers of relationships between these nine players. The red lines indicate when two of these parties are each others’ enemy and the dotted green lines indicate when two of these parties are each others’ allies:

While I am pretty sure that this graph is not comprehensive, you can see that relationships that are mapped out result in some pretty strange results:

• The United States is an enemy of Iran but we have a common enemy in ISIS. 
• The United States is an ally of Turkey who is an ISIS sympathizer
• The United States is an ally of the Saudis which is at least a sympathizer of ISIS.
• The United States and Russia do not get along at all recently but we have a common enemy in ISIS with opposing views of Assad and Syria.

You could go on and on but you get the idea, it is certainly a tangled web of enemies, allies, self interest, and the most important factor, oil and oil pipelines. (note: when I refer to oil in this post I also include natural gas.)

I mention oil for the first time because I believe that oil is a major driver of the entire crisis. One could make the case, which is the assumption that we will going under, that the Sunni Saudis and their Sunni allies would like to get rid of Shiite Assad so that they can build a pipeline for their Sunni oil through Syria. 

Such a pipeline would likely cause an economic disadvantage to the Russian oil industry so Russia would like to keep Assad in power to control any pipeline that goes through Syrian territory and work with the likes of Iran so that if any pipeline is built, it is a Shiite controlled pipeline with Russian support. Keeping Assad in place also gives the Russian military more flexibility in using the geography of Syria as a military port.

Of course there are other subplots going on but I believe oil drives the bulk of the conflict. Given all of the interdependencies, oil wealth and potential oil wealth, the whole Shiite vs. Sunni situation, etc., what is a diplomatic solution that allows each of the nine parties above to walk away with something positive from their diplomatic efforts even if it is not everything they would want? Obviously, everyone trying to get everything from this mess has not resolved this mess.

2) Long Term Resolution Assumptions - We need to make a number of assumptions before laying out the plan:

• ISIS needs to be defeated militarily and dismantled.
• The United Nations needs to be involved and engaged immediately after the defeat of ISIS to provide food, shelter, and help in reestablishing law and order to the ISIS areas.
• All countries will provide humanitarian and financial help after the ISIS defeat along the lines of the Marshall Plan after World War II.
• Refugees will be encouraged to return to their home countries with financial and transportation aid part of the encouragement.
• A United Nations peacekeeping force will be in place until no longer needed to ensure the reconstruction and terms of any diplomatic agreement are met.

Proposed details on what this grand diplomatic solution might look like, given the situation analysis and assumptions listed above will be laid out tomorrow. Included in the analysis will be a detailed look at what each of the nine parties listed above get and what they do not get as a result of the diplomatic solution. 

Hint: everyone gets something good, no one gets all of the good they would like to get.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Political Class Insanity Special Edition, Part 4: Syrian Madness, Quotes and Misquotes

This is our fourth discussion regarding the probably idiotic and insane notion from President Obama and other sin his administration that intervening in the Syrian civil war would be a good idea for America. The previous three discussions/posts laid out the many, many reasons why such a military effort is a very bad idea. Those reasons include, but are not confined to the following:

• We are not absolutely sure that the Syrian government actually used the poison gas, there are very good reasons and news sources  to believe that the rebel forces used the gas, either intentionally or unintentionally.
• A limited and narrow military attack, as proposed by the administration, will not remove Assad from the head of the Syrian government and will not deter him or other tyrants from considering the use of poison gas in the future.
• Over 100,000 Syrians have already been killed as a result of the civil war, the time to act was years ago prior to 100,000 people being needlessly killed. To act now when a relative handful have been killed is way too late to have any positive impact on the ground in Syria.
• Russia has already pledged to replace any military hardware destroyed by a U.S. attack and is considering giving the Syrians an advanced missile defense system. So again, how is a limited U.S. military strike going to do anything to impede the ability of the Syrian government to wage war on its citizens?

The vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum and across the country do not want to go to war against Syria, no matter how limited that war is promised to be. Most sensible Americans realize that historical U.S. military activity in the Middle East has NEVER ended well so what makes Obama and others think this will be any different.

Other reasons were put forth for not acting militarily starting at the following post:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/09/political-class-insanity-special.html

Today let’s focus on what people are saying about this disaster waiting to happen, both those in Washington and others outside of Washington who seem to have a better grasp of reality, integrity, and truth telling than those within the Federal government.

1) This fiasco started when President Obama issued a dare/ultimatum to the government of Syria in August, 2012, the now infamous “red line” proclamation: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

But just this week the President retreated from this ultimatum, actually claiming that the red line concept was not his, even though he stated it clearly last August: “First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [sic] abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war.”

Of course you set the red line, Mr. President, you stated it clearly and publicly last year. But we probably should not expect anything different from this President, this individual who would blame anyone else for his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his administration. It was Bush’s fault. It was Congress’ fault. It was the fault of the Japanese tsunami. It was the fault of ATM machines. All of these excuses have been tried by him in the past. This is just another example of him trying to shed blame, impinging his integrity in the process.

So if you are lying about something we are sure you are lying about, how can we trust you and your justifications for going to war when you have lied so many times in the past?

2) Senator John McCain, a big proponent of launching the missiles into Syria, had the following to say relative to the Congressional discussions going on about whether to authorize the President to militarily act: “Now that a resolution is going to be before the Congress of the United States, we want to work to make that resolution something that majorities of the members of both houses could support. A rejection of that, a vote against the resolution by Congress, I think would be catastrophic, because it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and of the President of the United States. None of us want that.”

Senator, the credibility of the United States is pretty much shot already, given the fact that Obama throw out a dare and then never backed it up with an operational plan. 

He did not go to the United Nations to get the world behind his bluff and bluster. 

He is trying to get Congress to support him in the eleventh hour, he should have been working the halls of Congress the same day he issued the red line threat a year ago. 

Given the opposition by Americans to military action as measured by opinion polls, he certainly did not make his case to the American people. 

He did not put diplomatic or economic pressure on Russia, a main Syrian ally, to get the use of chemical weapons made more emphatic to Assad.

He did not make his case to our allies, most of whom understand that military action of the type proposed and the timing are not the right thing to do.

Obama has already done a complete job of killing our credibility as a world leader already, Mr. McCain. Nothing Congress does will make that situation any better. Or have you been too busy playing online poker to notice?

3) No post on quotes would be complete without some factually wrong words out of Nancy Pelosi. Consider her response to a reporters question a few days ago:

Question: If Congress does reject this, can the president proceed if Congress rejects?

Pelosi: I don’t think Congress will reject. But I do want to remind you because the – I’ve been reading some of what some of you have written and say the president has never gone forward if Congress has not approved, when it has taken up the issue. I remind you that in 1999, President Clinton brought us all together, similar to this meeting here, but over a period of time to talk about going into the Balkans and the vote was 213-213, 187 Republicans voted ‘no,’ 180 Democrats voted ‘yes,’ about 30 on each side, something like that, went in a different way than the majority of their party. And that was when the planes were really ready to go into Bosnia [sic]. He went. And you know what happened there. So, I don’t – I don’t think that the congressional authorization is necessary. I do think it’s a good thing. And I hope that we can achieve it.

Pelosi is correct about the House vote, but it occurred five weeks after the military air campaign had already started. Missed the truth on that statement by five weeks, which is pretty good when it comes to the accuracy of her assertions in the past. I bring this up in that it is another case of how and why would we should not trust these people. The President blatantly denies saying something that the we know he said and Pelosi supports her position by just plain saying incorrect things.

4) John Kerry had an interesting time in front of Congress recently when he tried to explain that sending cruise missiles and other military ordinance into Syria is not “war” per se: “We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here to ask. The President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not asking you to declare war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to war… He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that.”

Sorry, I do not buy it. You cannot declare that blowing up people and things in Syria is not war. If the Syrian government launched a handful of cruise missiles into the United States, you can bet we would call it war. Abraham Lincoln once said:

Question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four, just because you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

This is not an “action” that the President is proposing, cruise missiles are not used in an action, they are only used in war. Again, the credibility of these people to deny reality or lie about reality knows no bounds.

5) By far, the most elegant, most insightful, and most accurate description and advice for the Syrian situation has come from someone outside of political office. Whether liberals and Democrats want to admit it, Sarah Palin had the best advice for not militarily intervening in the Syrian civil war. Her advice: “Let Allah sort it out.” 

These people, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and other religious sects have been attacking and killing each other for centuries. Ms. Palin correctly points out that a few cruise missiles fired from a few U.S. warships is not going to change anything within this centuries old quagmire.

6) Finally, let’s close with the views and opinions of Charlie Daniels, long time musician and current Internet blogger. He quite accurately and simply points out why the United States should stay out of the Syrian situation, and does it much more eloquently than the way Obama, Kerry, and others illogically try to justify a military strike. 

Best of all, he correctly points out that a slip of a tongue from the President of the United States is the reason we are in this situation and is also a reason not to go forward as Obama would like.

************************************

A Citizen's Take on Syria

Charlie Daniels | September 03, 2013 | 11:27

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

Obama painted himself and the nation into a corner with his “red line” statement and I truly believe he thought he would have unilateral international and domestic support only to find himself standing alone in the spotlight with egg on his face and a ticking political time bomb in his hand.

I don't believe he ever had any intention of going through Congress and only decided to do so when he was left without the support of traditional allies and the disdain of a war weary American public who have begun to feel that America cannot be the international police force who has to bear the brunt of every catastrophe.

I think Obama is taking the vote for military authorization to Congress to bail himself out, to buy some time, somebody to share the blame if all goes wrong. Obama had already positioned war ships. All that was left to do was give the order to fire the missiles and at the 11th hour, after being rejected by the British parliament and put off by the French, he started having second thoughts and reached for the life preserver.

I, for one, am glad that Obama - for whatever reason - political expediency notwithstanding, did not facilitate the missile attack as it would have been largely symbolic and cosmetic and as he had given Assad enough warning to move the weapons out of harms way would have done little if anything to rid the world of chemical weapons.

It's not that I think nothing should be done about weapons of mass destruction no matter where they're used in the world, but I believe it's not just the responsibility of the United States to enforce international law. If the civilized nations of the world shirk this duty, why should they think America should take on the job by itself?

America has done enough "sending signals", symbolic gestures, getting involved in situations that don't threaten our national interests or that of our allies.

America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously.

What little bit of credibility America had in the Middle East just went out the window Friday afternoon, as a president who let his ego overload his common sense backed down from a tin horned dictator of a third world country, or at least that's how it's viewed in that part of the world.

The mettle of a president and the people he surrounds himself with is not proven until push comes to shove. This nation has entered a new phase in the war on terror and our relativity in the rest of the world and the road is going to be long, rocky and dangerous.
It remains to be seen how this embarrassing situation will play out. Will the president seek the council of the more experienced advice available to him in Congress? Or, will he remain defiant and continue to go it alone.

You've cost America a great deal this past week, Mr. President.

How much more can we take?

*********************************

Very well said. This has been a very expensive President when it comes to spending and wasting our nation’s credibility on the world stage. All for very little n return.

Although things might change, this will do it for the current review and analysis of the Syrian situation. If you agree with the points we have made over the past four days, please call your Congressional representatives to vote against any authorization to use military force to intervene in a far away civil war that has no national security impacts on our country, despite what many in the Washington political class will try to sell you.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w