Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Even With Congressional Approval--Is Obama Misleading?

We are not so sure that even with Congressional approval, the President still could be misleading us and our legislators.  We should be very skeptical and demand independent verification of the facts.

As we posted last night, there are stories that the gas was supplied by the Saudis and was given to the rebels who mishandled the weapons.  Why have we not heard anything like that on the lame stream media?

It is because it does not meet the President's story that Assad did it. We cannot continue to believe the media as they do not investigate, all they do is regurgitate the White House.

This Administration has NOT earned our trust. If anything they should be dis-trusted.

Conservative Tom

Obama Wants Military Strike Against Syria, But Will Seek Congressional Approval
President Obama said Saturday that he had decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack, but that he would seek Congressional authorization for the use of force.
Mr. Obama said the Congressional leadership planned to hold a debate and a vote as soon as both houses come back in September.
He said he had the authority to act on his own, but believed it is important for the country to have a debate.


Gun Control At All Costs

Biden: We'll Target Congressmen Who Oppose Gun Control Efforts

Friday, 30 Aug 2013 12:32 PM
By Alexandra Ward
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
The White House will continue its push to strengthen gun control laws, even if it means targeting members of Congress who oppose its agenda, Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday.

"If Congress doesn't act, we'll fight for a new Congress," Biden said in the Roosevelt Room of the White House as he swore in B. Todd Jones as the new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It's that simple. But we're going to get this done."

In April, a bipartisan gun-control plan that would have expanded background checks and banned assault weapons failed to garner support in the Senate and was killed off, despite polls that showed massive public support in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. school massacre last Dec..

Now, Biden and President Barack Obama are pushing two new measures that they say should curb gun violence and keep weapons from those who shouldn’t have them. The orders are executive actions, which don't require congressional approval.

The orders will stop the import of surplus military weapons and close a loophole that allows felons to get around background checks by registering weapons to companies.

"It's simple, it's straightforward, it's common sense," Biden said.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Inspirational Engineer

Usually when you read about an engineer it usually involves lots of math and science but not humanity. In the following youtube video, we meet a  young man who really has beaten the odds and is an example of judging a man by the content of his character. Spend a few minutes and be inspired.

Conservative Tom

Friday, August 30, 2013

Contrary Information On Responsibility For Chemical Weapons Attack--You Haven't Seen This On The Evening News--Have You?

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack

  •  The Alex Jones ChannelAlex Jones Show podcastPrison Planet TwitterAlex Jones' FacebookInfowars store
Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident
Paul Joseph Watson
August 30, 2013
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
Image: YouTube
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.
His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.
According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.
“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.
If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles forBBC News.
The website on which the story originally appeared - Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.
Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.
The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”
As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.
UPDATE: Associated Press contacted us to confirm that Dave Gavlak is an AP correspondent, but that her story was not published under the banner of the Associated Press. We didn’t claim this was the case, we merely pointed to Gavlak’s credentials to stress that she is a credible source, being not only an AP correspondent, but also having written for PBS, BBC and

Deadliest Sniper In Syria--Humor

With all the very serious topics that we have been discussing in the past days, we thought it would be appropriate to add a bit of humor.  The topic of this posting doesn't sound like it would be funny, however, after viewing the entire piece, if you don't roll on the floor, we would be concerned about you!

Watch the entire piece, we hope you enjoy it as much as we did!

Conservative Tom

Obama Being Forced To Take On Syria?

Earlier today we wrote about our belief that Obama is moving against Syria because he wants the world to think he is a leader. Charles Krauthammer has a different take but it still involves the massive Obama ego. In both cases, he needs to prove something and to illustrate that he is up to the job.

We feel he will fail miserably.  He is messing in a part of the world that does not like outsiders imposing their will on them. We should have learned that in Iraq.  Apparently, Obama missed those briefings.

Conservative Tom


Britain’s rejection of taking action against the Syrian regime is a “complete humiliation” for President Barack Obama, syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Thursday.
Obama has been in consultation with several heads of state, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, about a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the government believes to have been behind the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus last week. A United Nations investigation has not made a determination.
“It is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration,” Krauthammer said on Fox News. “Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do which I think it’s a bad idea. But let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.
“So who’s the main ally in the world who’s been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us,” Krauthammer continued. “The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the U.N. inspectors which will be early next week.”
He pointed out that Democrats, including Obama, previously ridiculed the Bush administration for supposedly taking unilateral action in Iraq.
“So here is Obama and the Democrats who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground, a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing.”
In his Washington Post column published earlier Thursday, Krauthammer said the Obama administration was being “shamed into action.”
“Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose,” Krauthammer said, later adding, “Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.”
Watch Krauthammer on Fox News, via NewsBusters:
In his column, Krauthammer explained what in his view would be a better solution.
“Depriving Assad of his total control of the air and making resupply from Iran and Russia far more difficult would alter the course of the war. That is a serious purpose,” he wrote.
The White House has consulted Congress on the matter, including in a conference call between key administration officials such as Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, with 15 members of the House and Senate, including leaders, chairs and ranking members of the germane committees.
Houser Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) this week sent a letter to Obama that was widely viewed as implied consent for action, while also a request that the administration provide more information to Congress. However, other members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have said the administration must have congressional authorization before taking action.
Krauthammer thought there should be a greater role from Congress.
“It’s rather shameful that while the British prime minister recalled Parliament to debate possible airstrikes — late Thursday, Parliament actually voted down British participation — Obama has made not a gesture in that direction,” Krauthammer wrote. “If you are going to do this, Mr. President, do it constitutionally. And seriously. This is not about you and your conscience. It’s about applying American power to do precisely what you now deny this is about — helping Assad go, as you told the world he must. Otherwise, just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.”
(H/T: NewsBusters)

Obama Humor--Not From Him, From The Scots

New Antiseptic  Hydrogen 

It's not only the English who have a sense of humor.
The Scots do as well! New Antiseptic!!
This cartoon originated in Scotland . It looks like most
Of the world is laughing at our nation's leadership!
How sad that the world is laughing at the United States ,
While we sit by and watch and wonder what will happen next!

"This one nails it perfectly."

President Obama's approval ratings are so low now, the Kenyans Are accusing him of being born in the United States .

Americans Want Congressional Approval Before Going Into Syria--It's Time For Obama Administration To Listen

NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria

Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.

The White House telephone briefing with top members of Congress left many wanting a lot more details on the mission, as Britain chooses not to strike. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain's parliament rejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
But White House officials told NBC News that the administration was prepared to go it alone.
"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House and National Security Council, said in a statement.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by any country violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.

A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.
Obama’s job approval at 44 percentThe NBC poll also shows that President Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped one point since last month to 44 percent, which is tied for his lowest mark in past NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys.
He gets even lower marks on foreign policy: Just 41 percent approve of his handling of the issue – an all-time low.
And only 35 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Syria.
The NBC poll was conducted Aug. 28-29 of 700 adults (including 210 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of plus-minus 3.7 percentage points.
This story was originally published on 

The Bottom Line--Do We Trust This Administration To Tell Us The Truth About Syria?

If you can answer our question in the affirmative, then you should support the President. If not, then you should not. We have mixed feelings as we have expressed through this blog over the past weeks.

When you look at the issues that have dogged this Administration in the past year starting with Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal and up to Syria, we always have heard that it was no big deal. Benghazi was about a video, the IRS was a small group of agents, the NSA never spied on Americans and then the drip of information started and it always was bigger and uglier than initially presented by the Administration.  

We just don't trust these guys. Could they be telling us the truth, possibly. But just as the little boy who cried "wolf" learned, there have been too many instances of incorrect information presented as the "truth"  which turned out to be at best "massaged and spun" and not the whole ugly unvarnished truth. They have lost our confidence and we are not alone.

Kerry says read the evidence from "thousands of sources", yet the summary is only four pages long. We doubt the numbers, We doubt the Secretary of State as he has not been the paragon of truth starting with his exploits in Vietnam. We doubt the Administration.

There are far too many questions to believe that we are getting the truth. Could this only be a justification to go to war? You make your decision, ours is to vote against any action.

Conservative Tom

Kerry Outlines Evidence of Chemical Attack by Syria

John Kerry on Syria's Use of Chemical: A day after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, the Secretary of State made the case for U.S. involvement.
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Friday there was “clear” and “compelling” evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources,” Mr. Kerry said in aggressively laying out the administration’s case for strikes on Syria. “This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.”
Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.
A four-page intelligence summary released by the White House said the government had concluded that the Assad government had “carried out a chemical weapons attack” outside Damascus, based on human sources as well as communications intercepts. The suggestion that the opposition might have been responsible “is highly unlikely,” the assessment said.
Mr. Kerry said the administration had “high confidence” in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government had carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.
“We will not repeat that moment,” he said.
Mr. Kerry said the time for questions about what happened in Syria had passed.
“The question is whether we — we collectively — what are we and the world going to do about it?” Mr. Kerry said. He said that taking action in the face of the use of chemical weapons “matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States.”
Mr. Kerry acknowledged that the public in the United States was weary of war, saying that he, too, was tired after the years of military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he said that should not be used as an excuse not to act.
“Fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility,” he declared. “Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about.”
American intelligence agencies in the three days before the Aug. 21 attack detected signs of activities by the Syrian authorities “associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack,” the assessment said. Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the suburb of Adra from Aug. 18 until early on the morning of Aug. 21. On that date, it added, a “Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack,” including the use of gas masks.
Spy satellites detected rocket launchings from government-controlled territory 90 minutes before the first reports of a chemical weapons attack. The intelligence agencies said they had identified more than 100 videos attributed to the attack, many showing large numbers of bodies with physical signs consistent with nerve agents, and they added that the Syrian opposition “does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos.”
The agencies also said they intercepted the communications of a senior Syrian official who “confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on Aug. 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,” the assessment said. It added that on the afternoon of that day, Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.
President Obama is preparing to respond to the chemical attacks with a limited military strike on Syria despite Britain’s refusal to participate in the assault and expressions of deep reservation in Congress and among the American public.
The administration has repeatedly said there is no question that the government of Mr. Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.
That would cross the red line that Mr. Obama drew last year, when he declared that the large-scale use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad would “change my calculus” about American involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war.
Aides have said that the president has not yet made up his mind about whether to strike Syria. But administration officials have said they will release an intelligence assessment about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the end of the week.
Pentagon officials have moved warships and other military assets closer to Syria in preparation for a possible attack, which would most likely involve the use of cruise missiles. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has said the military is ready to execute any decision by Mr. Obama.