Turmoil In The Middle East

Due to U.S. involvement and efforts to manipulate various governments in the region (Egypt, Libya and Syria immediately come to mind) - the Middle East now finds itself in turmoil, as radical Islamic elements gain more and more power. The reasons for this are most likely deep and complex, but it is crystal clear that the current U.S. administration is supporting radical Islam. Strange times indeed. 

Perhaps more importantly, we are seeing the U.S. support the very groups who seek to destroy Israel, which is another 'interesting' development.

Additionally, today we see more warnings from Russia:

Putin Warns Russia Could Come To Syria's Aid Over U.S. Strike

U.S. heading for disaster in Syria. "Putin warns Russia could come to Syria's aid over US strike," from Fox News, September 5 (thanks to Hastings):

As he touched down in St. Petersburg on Thursday morning, President Obama greeted his host Vladimir Putin with a handshake and a smile.

But the cordial greeting belies the tinderbox the two leaders are sitting on, as they posture and deliberate over a potential U.S. strike on Syria -- one of Russia's closest Mideast allies.

Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike.

The warnings raise the possibility of a supposedly "limited" strike on Syria turning into a proxy tit-for-tat between Russia and the U.S.

Rep. George Holding, R-N.C., went further during a hearing on Syria on Wednesday, pressing military officials on what the U.S. would do "if Russia decided to strike at us in that theater."

"We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally," he warned.

Dempsey declined to engage in that discussion, saying only that "Russia has capabilities that range from the asymmetric, including cyber, all the way up through strategic nuclear weapons. And again, it wouldn't be helpful in this setting to speculate about that."

U.S. Expands List Of Potential Targets In Syria

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to expand the list of potential targets in Syria in case of a US-led strike, in response to a reported chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Assad regime on August 21.

According to a report in the New York Times on Friday, the Obama order came in response to intelligence indications that the Syrian government has moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons.

Officials cited in the report said that Obama is now focused on degrading the capabilities of the Assad government, expanding beyond the list of 50 or so initial sites to be targeted in a strike. The original list was reportedly developed with France.

The potential air campaign could last two days and would include long-range B-2 and B-52 stealth bombers which would fire guided missiles beyond the range of Syrian air defense systems, ABC News reported.

“The strikes would be aimed not at the chemical stockpiles themselves — risking a potential catastrophe — but rather the military units that have stored and prepared the chemical weapons and carried the attacks against Syrian rebels, as well as the headquarters overseeing the effort, and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks,” the Times’ report read, citing military officials.

Chemical Weapons Expert Highly Skeptical Of U.S. Case Against Syrian Government

Jean Pascal Zanders is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s top chemical weapons experts, having been quoted in the last two weeks about Syrian chemical weapons by McClatchy, Time, theLos Angeles Times, Post-Gazette, Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, Agence France-Presse, Global Post, the Telegraph, and many other publications.

We interviewed Zanders by phone.

I do not deny that a chemical with toxic chemicals has taken place. But I am just as concerned about how people are interpreting things in terms of a particular goal … which in this case is military intervention.

Living in a democracy we have the rule of of law, and we collect and analyze a variety of evidence collected at certain scenes before passing any kind of final judgment.

One of the concerns I have is if we look over the periods starting in March 19th with the major allegation of chemcial weapons use near Aleppo, Syria, everything is being reinterpreted as sarin.

When I look at video images that have been going around, what I see is a large number of people suffering from aspyhixia, but only a minority (if the photos are representative of the total picture) display symptoms that would correspond to exposures to neurotoxicants.

John Kerry used the term “signatures of sarin”. But signatures of sarin are things one can have from other organophosphorus compounds.

We do not know where the samples come from. And we do not know how representative they are for a certain area.

Certain samples could have been selectively given to Western sources for analysis. Assume that you do not know where a sample comes from … your whole chain of custody is compromised.

That’s why UN inspectors can only use samples they have collected themselves.

I personally don’t think that we have all the facts in right now to be absolutely certain. And I think this is reflected in the U.S. document with the terminology “high confidence” and David Cameron saying it’s his “judgment” or the government’s “judgment”, which reflects an interpretation of the facts.

In the U.S. document, there is not a single reference to physiological samples.

Syria, NSA Scandal Push G20 Summit Agenda

Despite pleasant views of St. Petersburg and a large list of economic challenges on world leaders’ agendas, political tension was apparent at the start of the G20 summit as the US faced questions regarding its stance on Syria and the NSA spying program.

At the Konstantinovsky Palace – where the first day of the G20 summit kicked off – the world’s largest economic powers braced for political battles, RT’s Aleksey Yaroshevsky reported from Strelnya.

The situation in Syria took center stage in summit discussions, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s opening call to “not mix up and bundle” economic and political issues. The two-and-a-half year conflict escalated after a chemical weapons attack took place outside of Damascus on August 21. The US believes it has evidence connecting the Syrian government to the attack. All eyes are currently on Congress as it decides whether to support a US strike on Syria.  

At the G20 dinner, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon addressed the situation in Syria, urging that any response to alleged chemical weapons use in Syria first go through the UN. 

"I sincerely hope that all the leaders of the five permanent Security Council members and some non-permanent members who are now here fully meet their obligations to the Syrian people," Ban said.

The Secretary General earlier stated that the UN values the cooperation and assistance of the Syrian government regarding the investigation in Syria.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, stated Russia’s position on Syria to reporters. He called for Russia’s partners, including the US, to take part in an “objective assessment of the situation,” dismissing the idea that Russia blocks the work of the UN Security Council on the Syrian conflict.

Only after UN investigators have their say on the alleged chemical attack in Syria would it be possible to say who perpetrated the attack, Peskov stressed. He added that Russia “cannot accept the proof that, in our view, is not a proof at all, that is far from being convincing.”

Leaders of the BRICS group, which includes the economies of Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, then jointly expressed their concerns that a military strike against Syria could have “an extremely negative effect” on the global economy.

They also stressed that the only legitimate body that can approve any kind of action on Syria is the UN Security Council, and that facts should not be manipulated to justify an attack.

Iran Plans Retaliation If U.S. Bombs Syria

Most analysts expect Iran to respond to any attack on Syria. But the kind of retaliation detailed in this Wall Street Journal article can be seen as escalating beyond anyone's ability to control:

The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

A delay in a U.S. strike would increase opportunities for coordinated retaliation by groups allied with the Assad government, including Shiite militias in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

Iraqi insurgents targeting our embassy in Baghdad is one thing. We can pretend that Iran had nothing to do with an attack of that nature and won't have to respond.

But Hezb'allah attacking our embassy in Beirut? That would require a military response by the US given the Hez's well known close relationship with Tehran. Before you know it, it's an eye for an eye until the whole world goes blind. As the Israelis could tell us, that kind of tit for tat response is usually counterproductive and could easily lead to widening the war.

That's why Iran will probably stick to unleashing its terrorist proxies in Iraq. Any retaliation that has their fingerprints in plain view would be met with a response from us that they want no part of.

Obama Continues To Push For Syria Support As Americans Ordered Out Of Lebanon



 US President Barack Obama is using his last day at the G-20 summit to renew his quest for foreign support for a US military strike in Syria. But three days after he left Washington, it’s unclear whether the global coalition the president has been seeking is any closer to becoming a reality.
China’s a firm no. The European Union is skeptical about whether any military action can be effective. Even Pope Francis weighed in, urging leaders gathered here to abandon what he called a “futile mission.”

On Thursday, the G-20 leaders served up Syria as dinner conversation at the suggestion of the summit’s host, President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has steadfastly backed Syrian President Bashar Assad and disputes claims that Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attacks.

Syria dominated the nearly three-hour meal, with leaders condemning the use of chemical weapons but reaching no consensus about the proper response, said a French official in St. Petersburg. Many leaders at the dinner remained in doubt about whether Assad’s regime was behind the attack, said the official, who was not authorized to be publicly named according to presidential policy.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin said Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, moving in warships into the area and stoking fears about a larger international conflict if the United States orders airstrikes.

Even at home, there was far from a consensus that an American strike on Syria was the best course of action. Awaiting Obama upon his return was an equally fractious debate in Congress over whether to authorize the limited military action he was proposing.

Syrian Strike Could Be 'Significantly Larger' Than Most Anticipated

ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported President Obama’s plan for a Syrian strike could be “significantly larger” than most anticipated Thursday on “World News Tonight.”

Karl quoted an unnamed national security official who claimed the attack could do more damage to Assad in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years:

JONATHAN KARL: […] ABC News has learned the president’s national security team is preparing for a significantly larger military attack than most had anticipated. The air campaign which is expected to last at least two days will potentially include an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs fired from B-2 and B-52 bombers flying from the United States. That in addition to a relentless assault of Tomahawk missiles fired from those four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Those ships are loaded with nearly 200 missiles, plans call for firing the vast majority of them. As one senior national security official told ABC News, this military strike could do more damage to Assad’s forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in nearly two years of civil war. That’s more than President Obama seemed to be suggesting just days ago.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What we are envisioning is something limited [...] We send a shot across the bow saying stop doing this.

The Ruling Elite Settles In


[Below are just a few quotes from a commentary that is worth reading in full]


It has been said a number of times in recent years that the U.S.  is undergoing a period of flux, a state of rapid churning on the political-sociallevel with any number contradictory trends appearing and vanishing while few permanent changes are evident.  After 2013, this may no longer be the case.  Events of this past summer indicate that a new political paradigm is settling in -- one in no way friendly toward American life as we now understand it. 


This new system was outlined by Dr.  Angelo Codevilla in his 2010 book, The Ruling Class. Codevilla saw clear signs of the formation of a ruling elite in the U.S., a convergence of interests among both "liberal" and "conservative" politicians, along with industrialists, academics, and members of theentertainment and media worlds.  It has become expedient for these blocs to combine their efforts in order to protect and extend their own interests, even in defiance of the American political system and secular creed as it has always existed.  Opposing this effort is the "country class," the vast mass of Americans, essentially the middle class (to be American is, in a real sense, to be middle class), who have invested their lives in the traditional state of the country and expect to see it remain as it is.   These past months present us with clear evidence that the Codevillian ruling class is beginning to take shape. 


If you want to see the American future from the point of view of the ruling class, look at Detroit -- a once mighty city that now features packs of wild dogs roaming through overgrown lots in abandoned neighborhoods.  There are photos of Detroit that hauntingly resemble third-world slum metropolises -- vast stretches of neglected, collapsing housing with the skyscrapers of the rulers looming in the misty distance.  This is what the Obama future looks like.  This is what the elite is willing to accept on our behalf. 

In the end, none of the elite's plans will work --ObamaCare , the gay apotheosis, green industry -- all these pipe dreams have been attempted elsewhere and have never worked.  ObamaCare is collapsing this minute with the terrible majesty of the Hindenberg at Lakehurst.  Green power has been revealed as a sure method of plunging headfirst into bankruptcy.   Justice Ginsburg's attempt to elevate gay marriages will simply make the Supreme Court look even more foolish than it already does. 

Nothing has gone right for the ruling classes since the 18th century.  The British wanted to transform America into another Ireland - a plantation and tax farm.  They saw their empire ripped in twain by the first extant army of free men in 1900 years.  The Bourbons wanted to intensify feudalism; they reaped the Terror and Napoleon.  The Nazis wanted technofeudalism on racist terms, the Japanese imperialists according to Shinto.  Both pulled the entire world down on top of themselves.  LBJ wanted the U.S.  run the same as his Texas ranch, with everything done his way.  He ended up drinking himself to death as one of the most casually despised men in American history. 

Criminals And Liars

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The Obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and Obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the Bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not Obama and John Kerry impeached? The Obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the Obama regime is worse. The Obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The Obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal Obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36116.htm

The Obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.



If the Obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister David Cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, Cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to Obama that if he defies
the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.







Where Is The Rule Of Law?




Where are common sense, logic, critical thinking, belief in God, accountability, and the Rule of Law? Have they been replaced by the Fabians’ Social Justice Doctrine, controlled chaos, endless corruption, good is bad, evil is good, mindless propaganda, and political correctness?

The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of our Republic and, without the Rule of Law, there is tyranny. Sen. Rand Paul wondered about the Rule of Law on the floor of the Senate: “Either we’re a nation of laws or not.” He continued, “If we ignored our own laws, are we in any position to preach to the rest of the world about democracy and the Rule of Law?” (C-SPAN radio 7/31/13)

The Rule of Law is necessary for freedom, justice, and equality to prevail, without it we are ruled by a government of men and women who make arbitrary decisions on a whim. When the Rule of Law is not respected, nobody is truly safe from government encroachment, intrusion, and abuse.

In the tsunami of executive ordersand laws passed against the wishes of the majority of the American people, was it legal to give Congress and its staffers a 75% subsidy to insulate them from the expensive and harmful effects of Obamacare?

Was it legal to give exemptions from the unaffordable Affordable Care Actto special groups and not enforce the law across the board in a timely manner, as it was passed?

Was it legal to fire AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin for doing his job and exposing the corruption of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson?

Was it legal to hound Republican administration appointees with often-absurd and/or invented accusations while ignoring crass corruption and illegal behavior of Democrat administration appointees?

Was it legal to wipe out GM and Chrysler bondholders by ignoring the bondholders “prior claim” and violating bankruptcy laws involving the order of compensation, and giving unions preferred status?

Was it legal to give the EPA so much power over Congress that it was able to force administratively the “cap” portion of “cap and trade?”

Was it lawful to declare the Senate in recess in order to make “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board? Has dissolving legislative bodies throughout history not been the hallmark of dictatorships?

Was it lawful to decree the Dream Act passed when Congress refused to pass it?

Was it legal to ignore the language of the Affordable Care Act and to run federal subsidies for state run exchanges in states that refused to set up exchanges? Current litigation is underway in the Oklahoma

Was it legal to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act mandate in spite of the clear terms of the statute?

Was it legal to send millions in farm subsidies to dead farmers?

Was it legal to sweep under the rug the Benghazi incident in which four Americans died needlessly? Yet we “feel” that it is our duty to get involved in someone else’s civil war because citizens there died and they happen to live under a dictatorship in the proximity of a lot of natural gas?

What happened to the Solyndra Criminal Probe investigation?  What happened to the many other criminal investigations relating to the “Green Energy” scams? You can hear crickets in the mainstream media.

Did the artificially low interest rates purposefully enable out-of-control government spending with cheap money? Did the government pressure the bond rating agencies such as Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch to not downgrade the U.S. debt further? If they did so, was it legal? “The Truth” wants to know because the media is reporting very little.

Also see:



A Coffee Shop In A Slaughterhouse




U.S. Congress Speaker Refuses To Meet Russian Delegation