Obama, Cameron, Hollande Plan to Attack Syria. Time For Them to Go!

Time For Them to Go!

Syria has insisted rebel forces were responsible for an attack in which a team of UN inspectors came under fire while trying to enter the site of an alleged gas attack.
Syria had agreed to let UN inspectors visit the scene of the violence, which the charity Médecins Sans Frontières [Doctors without Borders] said had killed around 350 people and left 3,600 needing treatment for "neurotoxic symptoms".
Western countries, including Britain, are planning to take unilateral military action against the Assad regime within two weeks in retaliation for its alleged [emphasis added] use of chemical weapons on civilians in Syria.

David Cameron discussed launching missile strikes against key regime targets during a 40-minute telephone call with Barack Obama on Saturday night and also with the French President François Hollande on Sunday. While Downing Street said western powers had not ruled out seeking UN endorsement for military action they added that they were also prepared to unilaterally.
A Downing Street source said that Mr Cameron would speak again to the US President and would also be engaging with other key European allies. It said: "If the Assad regime were innocent they wouldn't have stopped UN inspectors from coming and they would have stopped shelling the area.

"Therefore we are into a scenario of, not has there been an incident and does the international community need to respond, but how should the international community respond? This is where our focus now is.
It added that any attack would not be intended to sway the military balance between Assad forces and they [sic] Syrian opposition. "This is not about trying to shape the outcome of the Syrian conflict by military means. This is focused on the incident that happened on Wednesday."

Source: Syria: UN weapons inspectors attacked as they try to reach site of alleged poison gas attack - Middle East - World - The Independent

Assuming the reporting by The Independent is correct, you will please note that these morons (I'm being polite) running the US and UK and France take allegations to guilty verdicts before any evidence has been even examined and based upon the falsehood that Assad was preventing the UK team's access to prevent them from conducting their scientific investigations.

Why must we have idiot hotheads running nations with nuclear weapons? Assad has zero to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons. He knew that the moment Barack Obama made his "red line" statement.

Assad is not a wild man in the Qaddaffi mold. He actually thinks before he speaks and takes action.

Even if Assad's side were to use some chemical weapons, which I have no reason to believe at this point that it has, where are the statements by Obama and Cameron and Hollande that if it turns out that the "rebels" have used the chemicals, the US, UK, and France will hunt down the source, even if it leads to the Saudi Royal Family, and shoot a few of the cruise missiles now being planned against Assad at the Saudis instead? You don't hear that. It shows the hypocrisy. It shows the falsehood coming out of David Cameron's mouth. He's only been itching for any pretext to damage a relatively independent Syria, to force it to it's knees, to weaken it utterly, to make it easily re-smashed if it dares to defy the dictates of the Western Imperium, of which he, Cameron, is a war-lord vassal.

These "men" need to be removed from the levers of power before they destroy the Earth.

They are saying they will go without UN sanctioning. They will go against Syria, against Assad, whether Russia and China agree with that move or not. If they do and if Russia and China and Iran don't link arms in a military mutual-defense treaty/pact, then the world is an unrecognizable place. It will have changed that much within my lifetime so far.

A number of other nations in the world better start rethinking their alliances too. If the US and UK can once again get away with what they did to Iraq (completely under false pretexts drummed up by the Zionist-neocons in the Western nations), then no other nations on the planet are safe from being unilaterally dictated to by the US in particular and regardless of the justness of its cause, regardless of whether the US and its vassals are attacking based upon not even mere suspicions but also outright lies and fabrications.

We all already know full well that Barack Obama has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes and other high crimes and violations of global human rights and the US Bill of Rights. We know, and have shown, that he continues to lie, lie, and lie about what his "intelligence community" is doing (See: Secret NSA Documents Prove Barack Obama is a Pathological Liar). Now is the time to move to impeach and remove him from office to remove the grave danger he poses.

Barack Obama is no better concerning Syria than George W. Bush was concerning Iraq. Bush was not as patient and slick, but the result will be the same if he's allowed to go through with this dimwitted plan. Obama will have attacked Syria based upon unsubstantiated allegations at best: a clear war crime.

What has happened to the "liberals" in the US? They used to be anti-war.

During the Vietnam War, you could divide the nation into Hawk and Dove, conservative and liberal, based solely upon whether the people were either pro-war or anti-war. What's happened to that?

Where are the "liberal" voices rising up to denounce Barack Obama, pulling their support completely out from under him to stop him from having the political capital to spend destroying Syria, murdering innocent children and babies (baby killers)?

Yes, Basher al Assad made stupid mistakes when the "Arab Spring" began in his nation. He flubbed his golden opportunity to work directly with the protesters to redesign the government, to reform it, to go down in history as a great leader. That, however, is no reason to destroy Syria. There is still room for a real negotiated settlement if only Western leadership will act as responsible adults rather than fearmongers and warmongers.

Where are the real men? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the truth-tellers and -seekers? I don't see them in Obama or Cameron or Hollande. They must either change and do it now or be removed: go. Time for them to go!


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.