SM1'S BLOG 4 U: One Citizen Speaking...

Sunday, September 8, 2013

One Citizen Speaking...

Obama pivots: makes Syria attack all about Iran?

Posted: 07 Sep 2013 09:31 PM PDT

It appears that the Obama Administration is hitting a brick wall. The majority of Americans do not believe President Obama and his fellow travelers after seeing them openly lie to the American public about so many other issues. “We the People” are unwilling to cede additional powers to the President to commit an act of war on a foreign sovereign nation without an abiding national interest. And, since Syria has not attacked the United States and the conflict is confined to two sides who both hate the United States, it appears Obama needs to gin up some reason to attack Syria.

Unlike an Iranian attack in support of Israel, there is nothing useful to be gained about attacking Iran. In fact, Syria could be used as a diversion for an Iranian strike. Massing troops and assets in the region and then striking Iran. But, President Obama does not appear to have any leadership ability or the balls to do this without encouragement from Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Brennan – all who may believe that a nuclear Iran is simply a deterrent to the non-aggression of Israel.

There does not appear to be any credible proof about the chemical weapons attack at this time, yet the Obama Administration wants to commit an “act of war” by attacking a foreign sovereign nation …

In spite of John Kerry’s weasel words, it is an “act of war” to attack another nation with missiles. If “we don’t want to go to war,” what compelling force is driving us forward? We know it is not the United Nations, the Arab League, NATO, or our allies – so, other than the progressive socialist democrats and their republican enablers like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who is forcing the United States to take action?

Kerry: Bombing Syria Would Not be an "Act of War"...Per Se
“We don’t want to go to war. We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war. The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. It’s a limited action. It’s limited… Senator, when people are asked do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we say no. 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… Ya know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That is not what the president is asking for here.”
<Source>

Either John Kerry is a stupid, irrational man or he is a lying hypocrite. Any attack on a foreign sovereign nation is an ACT OF WAR. And, while the progressive socialist democrats are fond of redefining words and situations in an Orwellian manner. There is no such thing as a “limited action” when it comes to an Act of War.

We may make the case that drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere are acts of war, but in that instance, we are going after enemies of the United States who have planned or operationally carried out acts of terrorism against the United States and its allies. Syria has attacked nobody and continues to resist rebels probably financed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations who see Syria as a proxy for an Iran they greatly fear. It appears to be the wish of these Islamic dictatorships to involve the United States to the extent it neutralizes the Iranian nuclear threat and preserves their dictatorships. When it became apparent that Obama and his fellow travelers were not going to support Israel during their “window of opportunity” lest it disrupt Obama’s reelection bid, these nations needed to give Obama a reason to attack Iran … and it appears that Syria is merely a stepping stone to that attack.

No direct link to Assad or his regime …

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S. | Reuters
With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.
No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.
It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.
Read more at … Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S. | Reuters

Even a far left anti-war loon like Dennis Kucinich is asking good (and specific) questions questions of the Obama Administration …

Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria | Dennis J. Kucinich
The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.
Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.
Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient
Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements
Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack
Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack
Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack
Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria
Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack
Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack
Read the supporting materials and more detailed questions at: Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria | Dennis J. Kucinich

I am not the only one thinking along these lines …

Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
Read more athttp://www.thenation.com/blog/176040/obamas-syria-war-really-about-iran-and-israel#

But President Obama and his fellow travelers are disingenuous, dishonest, and untrustworthy when it comes to Israel …

There is little or no doubt in my mind that President Obama is anti-Jew and anti-Israel from the 20+ years learning about a socialist worldview at the feet of his spiritual mentor, the Reverent Jeremiah Wright and associations with pro-Muslims such as Louis Farrakhan. Many people in the Administration are pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian – and none greater than recently appointed CIA Director John Brennan who speaks fluent Arabic.

Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam' FOX
The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.
"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU. <Source>

Here’s what Wright said about his lack of conversation with President Obama since Jan. 20:
“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck or in eight years when he’s out of office. They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. I said that from the beginning. He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.”
Reverend Wright's comments claiming that "Them Jews" are preventing him from communicating with President Obama are inflammatory and false. The notions of Jewish control of the White House in Reverend Wright's statement express classic anti-Semitism in its most vile form. In a short succinct sentence, Reverend Wright manages to both label some of the President's closest advisors solely by their religious beliefs and give them powers superior to the President himself. <Source>

Bottom line …

Healthcare. Benghazi. Fast-and Furious. IRS. NSA. – you just cannot trust President Obama to tell the truth. The man is fundamentally untrustworthy as evidenced by his refusal to permit the inspection of his vital records to establish eligibility. Like Michael Jackson who spent tens of millions of dollars in payments to young boys and continued to protest his innocence, Obama’s supporters have spent millions to fight any attempt to examine his records. Yet, he wants all of our records to be kept in an unsecure government database where they would be available to politicians.

When it comes to Syria, I do not know the answer because I cannot trust the government to tell the truth.

-- steve

Obamacare: The chickens are coming home to roost and the bird-sh*t is being ignored by the politicians

Posted: 07 Sep 2013 05:31 PM PDT

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is tragically flawed …

There is no doubt in my mind that Obamacare, drafted behind closed doors by radical democrats and progressive socialist foundations, is totally unworkable as it ignores four basic principles.

Supply and Demand – it is impossible to add millions of new insured patients without a corresponding increase in facilities, physicians, diagnostic devices, and other medical necessities. In the absence of available healthcare, the insurance companies will be forced to delay or deny care; and to implement rationing that may lead to the deaths of patients in desperate need of healthcare.
Penalties and gaming the system – Obamacare provides that individuals who do not seek insurance policies on their own will be penalized for non-compliance. Since the penalties are far less than the required insurance premiums and the coverage for pre-existing medical issues is guaranteed by law, it becomes a simple matter to sign-up for coverage only when you experience a catastrophic illness. Remember, under Obamacare, nobody can be refused medical care at any emergency facility. And, like State-issued Medicaid, the medical facility is likely to have facilitates on staff to help patients sign-up for insurance as it is in their best financial interests to perform this service.
Physicians and other personnel are not slaves and there are likely to defect if their wages are curtailed, increased workload is mandated and stress levels rise beyond their coping levels. This will result in medical treatments being pushed down the chain to, perhaps, unqualified or inexperienced personnel – thus increasing the error rate to the detriment of the patient. Personal care calibrated to the patient’s needs becomes increasing unlikely under Obamacare.
The Administration lies – many of the initial claims used to sell Obamacare, from funding sources to being able to keep your current healthcare insurance policy and doctors, were outright lies. As was the Administration’s claims of efficiencies and the reduction of fraud, waste, and abuse. Politicians and governmental agencies have had decades to curb waste, fraud, and abuse – especially by organized crime, yet the refuse to do so; curtailing the hiring of additional inspectors and prosecuting all by the most high-profile, media-notable, cases.

Senior citizens who worked for one of the world’s most preeminent employers appear to be greatly disadvantaged by Obamacare …

Citing costs, IBM to move retirees off health plan - Published September 07, 2013 - The Wall Street Journal
International Business Machines Corp. plans to move about 110,000 retirees off its company-sponsored health plan and instead give them a payment to buy coverage on a health-insurance exchange, in a sign that even big, well-capitalized employers aren't likely to keep providing the once-common benefits as medical costs continue to rise.
The move, which will affect all IBM retirees once they become eligible for Medicare, will relieve the technology company of the responsibility of managing retirement health-care benefits. IBM saidthe growing cost of care makes its current plan unsustainable without big premium increases.
IBM's shift is an indication that health-insurance marketplaces, similar to the public exchanges proposed under President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul, will play a bigger role as companies move coverage down the path taken by many pensions, paying employees and retirees a fixed sum to manage their own care.
IBM told retirees that its current retiree coverage will end for Medicare-eligible retirees after Dec. 31, 2013, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by IBM.
"Cost increases under our current retirement group health care plan are no longer sustainable for you," IBM said in the notices. "Health care costs under IBM's current plan options for Medicare eligible retirees will nearly triple by 2020, significantly impacting your premium and out of pocket costs," the notice said.
Some companies began experimenting with exchanges around eight years ago after accounting changes forced public corporations to disclose future health-care obligations. Read more at Citing costs, IBM to move retirees off health plan | Fox News

Defective by design?

There appears to be able proof that the current version of Obamacare, designed mainly by the progressive socialist lobbyists, is defective by design. With the end result being the creation of medical-related chaos that will allow the government to impose the progressive dream of a “single payor” government-controlled healthcare plan in place without any opposition – as if the United States was Cuba or any other socialist nation.

For those who point to Canadian or Swedish healthcare models to refuse the basic dangers of a single-payer plan, consider that those populations are constrained by factors that are not found in the United States and, for many people, remain unworkable unless the government is willing to continually raise taxes to cover the rising healthcare costs. Something difficult to do in a capitalist system. r

Bottom line …

Whether speaking about Benghazi, Syria, gun running to Mexican drug cartels for political purposes, gun running to Terrorists to aid the Muslim Brotherhood, the IRS and NSA scandals OR OBAMACARE, you cannot trust The President and his fellow travelers or any of the progressive socialist democrats in Congress.

It appears, at least from my viewpoint, that the system is totally broken and needs to be repealed and replaced. The greatest danger to the ordinary American is a corrupt and self-serving political class who exempts themselves and their special interest friends from compliance under the law.

Every member of Congress that signed on to Obamacare should be removed from office, starting at the 2014 congressional election cycle. Otherwise, Americans will be killed by their own hand – suicide by vote – when it comes time to obtain life-saving care under a system that perpetuates the power of a single-political class.

Check your insurance and ask yourself if you want your treatment specified by a doctor or a bureaucratic insurance clerk?

-- steve