- These people (Syria: EU urges strong response, as Kerry seeks support - CNN.com) want to wait for a UN report where the UN specifically was sent not to investigate who did it.
- That article says the Europeans claim the Syrian government was "the only party with access to such weapons." That's total nonsense. It's plain false propaganda. The rebels are supported by some of the riches people on Earth: The Saudis. Of course they, the rebels, could have been given chemical weapons and delivery systems. In addition, some rebels have reportedly admitted to an AP reporter that they had been given such weapons and that they did have an accident with them in which a number of people died. How many rebels were given such weapons? What plan were they given?
- Turkey caught reported al Qaeda types with sarin in Turkey, which Turkey said was suspected to be on its way to Syria. [Update: It has been reported that the sarin turned out to be anti-freeze. However, Turkey is siding with the rebels in Syria. The reason that matters is because mistaking anti-freeze for sarin even momentarily is incredibly strange. Did the sarin become anti-freeze for political reasons?]
- Previously, the UN had reported concerning an earlier chemical attack that the rebels appeared to be behind it, not the government – conveniently ignored by Obama.
- Earlier attacks, the sarin used did not have the Syrian government's stabilizers in it and the missiles used to deliver the gas were not those used by the Syrian government/military.
- We also have it from credible sources that when chemicals were used in Syria, the Syrian high command went to great lengths to be sure that it was not the Syrian military that had released the chemicals, that no rogue released any. The Syrian military thought that its investigations and communications on the subject were secret, but they were intercepted and blatantly twisted/misrepresented by the Zionists.
- We also have a Secretary of State who actually claimed to the US Senate that he can guarantee them that there is no al Qaeda in Syria. For that, President Vladimir Putin of Russia rightly called John Kerry a liar. What he politely left out was how incredibly stupid Kerry's comment was in addition to being a lie. It was a lie because it is common knowledge that the al Nusra Front is in Syria and is openly al Qaeda. They are under the al Qaeda umbrella. It's like Kerry saying Germany isn't NATO, isn't under the NATO umbrella. The al Nusra Front is in Syria and is supported in that by the top al Qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda would not denounce al Nusra for claiming to be part of the al Qaeda pact.
Regardless, how difficult would it have been for rebels to release gas at various locations under attack by the Assad forces? Not very. Nevertheless, the US Obama administration is racing the US into attacking Syria based upon evidence that is no more compelling than the joke evidence that was supplied by the George W. Bush administration in the run-up to the attack on, and invasion of, Iraq.
We know that Bush-43 deliberately lied the US into war. We know he authorized waterboarding torture. Those are both war crimes and crimes against humanity. They violate the US Constitution and the international law on the subjects to which the US has obligated itself under its Constitution as the highest law of the land.
Why are we allowing Barack Obama to rush the US into additional war crimes, a man who chose to look the other way by saying he wanted to look forward rather than back at the Bush-43 war crimes? Barack Obama causes the worst moral hazard on the face of the Earth by looking the other way. He is setting an evil precedent that Presidents will not hold former Presidents to account for war crimes, etc.
Plus, Obama himself has ordered people murdered in many places, people who should have been afforded due process of law at the very least but were not.
He has also allowed the grossly unconstitutional dragnet-surveillance of the American people, concerning which James Clapper expressly lied with impunity granted to him by Barack Obama. He's done that while falsely claiming that the secret FISA court has been good enough to assure against invasions of privacy and unreasonable searches and seizures.
Barack Obama has put the issue of attacking Syria before the US federal legislature but at the same time has not ruled out ordering an attack even if the Congress (both houses) don't agree with the attack. He has also had his side in this so-called debate make public statements that the Obama administration would illegally ignore any UN Security Council ruling against Obama on the subject.
What that constitutes is dictatorship by Barack Obama. When coupled with his non-veto of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), which contains aspects that supposedly allow the President the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone the President merely deems an enemy without any due process whatsoever, we are clearly under a dictator the US. The Republic is dead.
Well, I'm an enemy in a very real sense. I'm non-violent but an enemy in their eyes for speaking out against them, against the dictatorship, against the lawlessness, the breaking of the US Constitution.
At this point, either the American people rise up in time in opposition or the nation will end up disintegrating into violent revolution because it is fairly clear that the military would now never exercise a military coup to remove an illegally dictatorial President the Congress refuses to impeach and remove. The military leaders are cowed. They do not put the US Constitution first. They have been handpicked to back the dictatorial-imperial presidency.
Barack Obama puts Bradley Manning in prison for 32 years for exposing the war crimes of the US in Iraq. He goes after Edward Snowden for leaking proof that James Clapper lied about the unlawful/unconstitutional spying on the American people, which spying even the US Supreme Court is not legally allowed to okay as constitutional.
The rights of the people are reserved to the people. Those rights include removing evil dictators. That's the natural law.
I don't want violence. I'm not advocating violence. I'm opposing violence.
I want the evil dictators removed once and for all. Down with the sociopaths. Down with the unrepentant Barack Obama and all of the members of his administration.
- Attacking Syria Without UN Authorization Would Be a War Crime Under International Law
- Obama's Planned Attack on Syria is Losing Ground Quickly
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)