Archive for September, 2013

I suppose I am to be impressed that our liar-in-chief decided to respond to one of my many comments on the situation WE have created in Syria, but I am not.  To the contrary, I am ever more disgusted with what is supposed to be, “my government”.

Here’s the email, in its entirety:


Dear Anne:



Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans about the conflict in Syria and the chemical weapons attack that took place there, and I appreciate your perspective.


Over the past 2 years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war in Syria.  Over 100,000 people have been killed.


In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement.  But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force.


The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians—including hundreds of children—were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.


What happened to those people is not only a violation of international law.  It is also a danger to our security.


If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them.  Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians.  If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.


So after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.  The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.


Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act.  Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress—and when Americans stand together as one people.


As this debate unfolds, we have already begun to see signs that the credible threat of United States military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough.  The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and the Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they would join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.


It is too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments.  But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.


That is why I have asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.  In the days ahead, I will continue my discussions with President Putin.  At the same time, we will work with two of our closest allies—France and the United Kingdom—to put forward a resolution at the United Nations Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.


Meanwhile, I have ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.


As we continue this debate—in Washington, and across the country—I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.  To get the most recent information about the situation in Syria,

Thank you, again, for writing.




Barack Obama


**  Now, our president says he needs our help.  But, he does not seem to be accepting that help.  He doesn’t seem to want to hear our thoughts on the situation in the Mid-East.  So why does he even end his letters in such a manner?  I guess he still thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time(?).

Syrian leader, Al Assad, has said he would give-up his chemical weapons stockpile(s) to Russia.  This should satisfy “our” American government.  But, it does not.  Why is this?  It is because American federal government does NOT make the policy or decide on the wars or massacres, particularly in the Mid-East;  Israel does!  And, though Al Assad did not use Sarin and has vowed to allow Russia to keep tabs on whatever chemical weapons they currently hold, it is never enough for Bibi and Co.  Bibi is out for blood;  Syrian blood!  He is out to create the, “Greater Israel” (from the rivers to the sea-  read your old testament if you don’t believe ME!) and Syrians are in the way.  So, Bibi must get us (USA, yes; US, not his own military) to blow Syria to kingdom-come.

What do most Americans think of this?  How about, “Hell, no;  WE won’t go!”  Is this language strong enough and simple enough for even Obama to comprehend?  It seems NOT.

And as far as Israel (IsraHELL) is concerned, maybe their motto needs to be changed from, “never again”, to, “never enough”?  For, no matter WHAT America does, regarding making war(s) and massacre(s) upon all people of the Mid-East, it is NEVER ENOUGH!


May we now puhh-leeeze STOP FUNDING ISRAEL??  If they continue to act like our worse enemy, can we please treat them the same?  How about nuking Israel?  MAY we PLEASE get past our sadness over the, “holocaust” (hollow-cause, due to its overuse), and finally let them have what they have coming?  Remember:  Israel has a plan for all of us, any of us who refuse to do what they insist WE do:  it is called, “Sampson Option”.  And the plan is to NUKE all of the world’s capitol cities, in order to keep getting their way.

With friends like Israhell, WHO needs enemies?

(sorry if this was rambling, a bit;  I had a lot to say and it’s been a while since I posted!)

Thanks to ALL of my wonderful subs.  I appreciate each of you and, especially, love your comments!Image