WH Chief of Staff: U.S. Has No Military Allies for Syria Strike

The United States has no military allies in its plan to launch missile attacks against Syria as punishment for the country's use of chemical weapons, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday.

McDonough conceded the fact on CNN's "State of the Union" after persistent questioning from host Candy Crowley, who asked him whether President Barack Obama has secured international military support for the strike — as opposed to moral support.

"Not at this point," he said. "But it is specific support for holding him [Syrian President Bashar Assad] to account, and it is a recognition that it happened. We feel very good about the support we have, and we’ll continue to build more."

McDonough said Obama, Congress and the rest of the world no longer doubt the fact Assad carried out such horrific crimes against his people.

"Nobody now debates the intelligence, which makes clear … that in August, the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people," he said. "The entire world believes that. Congress has the opportunity this week to answer a simple question: Should there be consequences for him for having used that material."

Obama, who will address the country Sept. 10 on the topic, has called for a targeted, limited, consequential-action campaign to deter Assad and degrade his capabilities for another chemical-weapons attack, McDonough said.

"This is not Iraq or Afghanistan," he said. "This is not Libya. This is not an extended air campaign."
On NBC's "Meet the Press," McDonough said stopping the Syrian government from moving chemical weapons out of hiding and onto the front lines is the goal of Obama's intended missile strikes.
If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, it means a greater risk of them being proliferated, McDonough said.

"I hope that every member of Congress, before he or she decides how they'll cast their vote, will look at those pictures," McDonough said, referring to the video of an Aug. 21 attack showing adults and children suffering from the effects of sarin gas. The video also shows the bodies of dead children lined up across a room.

Although public sentiment and that of Congress is largely against U.S. military action, McDonough said that no one who has seen the intelligence on the attack doubts it.

"That means that everybody believes that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people … killing nearly 1,500 on Aug. 21," McDonough said. "So the question for Congress this week is what are the consequences for his having done so?"

Congress' answer will be listened to not only in Syria, McDonough said, but also in Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iran, which is working on a nuclear weapons program, must be told that it does not have greater freedom to act, he said.

"They do not have greater operating space to pursue a nuclear weapon which would destabilize that entire region, threaten our friends and allies and ultimately threaten us."

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/denis-mcdonough-syria-chemical/2013/09/08/id/524403?s=al&promo_code=14CD1-1#ixzz2eL8zc2Qa
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Taj Maha Schools

Taj Maha Schools are being built all across America that are overshadowed by huge football stadiums, tennis courts, track fields, etc. with education taking a backseat. Most if not all are controlled by liberal teachers whose only purpose is to teach liberalism and spend, spend, spend. Below is one example of fed up:

One bill at a time: PA man pays school property tax — all $7,143 of it — in $1 bills

By Melissa Daniels | PA Independent
HARRISBURG —  One, two … 6,999, 7,000 …
An Easton, Pa. man, frustrated over property taxes, visited the local tax office and paid in dollar bills – all $7,143 of it.
One bill at a time.
Local news reports identify the man as Robert Fernandes of Forks Township.
The scene, posted on YouTube, has generated more than 15,600 views — in less than a week.
In the video, Fernandes carries a duffel bag filled with bundled bills, which he proceeds to stack on a counter. He brings doughnuts, offered to “anyone who is inconvenienced here today.”
The tax collector tells Fernandes his protest should probably be directed elsewhere, toward the school board, maybe, which is in charge of setting property tax rates.
“I’m not doing this to make anybody’s life more difficult,” Fernandes tells the collector. “Unfortunately, I wish the same could be said, you know, for me and many others whose lives are more difficult for having to pay property taxes.”
Fernandes wants the tax collector to count every dollar bill. As Fernandes opines, the collector accepts checks from people paying in a more traditional manner.
“In the land of the free, which is supposedly where we live, you would expect that property rights were respected here,” he says, “and obviously they’re not because we are never truly property owners in this country. We are merely renters.”
Fernandes said he wanted to create the visual so “people can actually see how money is being taken from me.” He makes it clear it’s not voluntary – Fernandes says he’s paying out of the fear someone will take his house. He said he homeschools his children and doesn’t use the school system.
The collector, rather than count each bill, asks that, together, they make a trip to the bank. To Fernandes and his video team, this seems ironic.
“They take money from people and they can’t even count it,” Fernandes said.
Fernandes said the point of the exercise was to get people to think, not about how tax rates, necessarily, but why property should be taxed in the first place.
Fernandes got a response, of sorts. In The Express-Times, a newspaper in the Lehigh Valley, the respective school superintendent said true reform should come from state lawmakers.
The discussion is a perennial one, and this fall legislative session will be no different.
A proposal from Rep. Seth Grove, R-York, would allow schools to decide whether they want to move away from property taxes and institute other taxes on income or businesses to make up the difference. Proposals such as the Property Tax Independence Act would create a statewide shift from school property taxes to increases in sales and income taxes.
The latter idea has widespread support among taxpayer advocates in Pennsylvania, who will head to the Capitol on Sept. 24 to rally for it.
Contact Melissa Daniels at melissa@paindependent.com
This file was originally posted Sept. 5 at 10:36 a .m.

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Credibility

AP: Congress Voting 6 to 1 Against Strike

Suggesting an uphill fight for President Barack Obama, House members staking out positions are either opposed to or leaning against his plan for a U.S. military strike against Syria by more than a 6-1 margin, a survey by The Associated Press shows. The Senate is more evenly divided ahead of its vote next week.

Still, the situation is very fluid. Nearly half of the 433-member House and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided.

By their statements or those of aides, only 30 members of the Republican-led House support intervention or are leaning in favor of authorizing the president to use force against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government in response to a chemical weapons attack last month.

Some 192 House members outright oppose U.S. involvement or are leaning against authorization, according to the AP survey.

The situation in the Democrat-controlled Senate is better for Obama but hardly conclusive ahead of a potential vote next week. The AP survey showed those who support or are leaning in favor of military action holding a slight 34-32 advantage over those opposed or leaning against it.

Complicating the effort in the Senate is the possibility that a three-fifths majority may be required. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he is going to filibuster.

Still, Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, predicted, "I think we’re going to get 60 votes,"

Speaking to reporters Friday after a summit of world leaders in St. Petersburg, Russia, Obama acknowledged the difficulties he faces in seeking support for action. He said he would address the nation on Tuesday.

"It’s conceivable at the end of the day I don’t persuade a majority of the American people that it’s the right thing to do," Obama said. But the president, who again would not say what he would do if Congress rebuffed him, expressed confidence that the people and their lawmakers would listen to his case.

"Failing to respond," he said, "would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence."

Whatever Obama might decide, a rejection from Congress would have wide-ranging ramifications in the United States and abroad.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Congress-Against-Syria-Strike/2013/09/07/id/524364?s=al&promo_code=14CCC-1#ixzz2eG6lN3aq
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

New Generation of Genius

Helping your Enemies?

So many people are against any military action on Syria because it all comes back to biting the hand that feeds you. Every so call police action that America has been in since the Korea war has made the people of these nations resent, hate, and despise Americans. The average tax paying citizen is right now struggling to hold their heads above water. But once again we are being ask to give up more of our brave children and resources to a world who does not give a damn about us. Most of these people perceive our kindness for them as a weakness instead. Look at what we have given to Iraq, and did it really help any? Trying to help our enemy does not help make America stronger. It all comes down to just pissing into the wind.

Bad Teachers

The unforgettable moment of parental bonding in the delivery room deceives many parents. After all, in today’s society, mothers and fathers are encouraged to be there for their children from first breath, cutting the umbilical cord, cheering at soccer matches, and helping in the doctor’s office, where many a queasy parent is asked to assist with something that can make a grown man go weak in the knees.
Most parents diligently work to raise up a generation of strong, confident, intelligent people, who know how to use the potty.
Which leaves many of us incredulous when it comes to the 1950s flashback – like expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room from an episode of “Mad Men” – that occurs when we start to engage in our children’s education, as “experts” in our modern day school system block us at the door to keep our parental cooties outside.

Why is it that when we start to engage in our children’s education, “experts” in our modern day school system block us at the door to keep our parental cooties outside?

Suddenly, parents should be seen and not heard, while we keep the checks coming.
My four children attend public schools in one of US News & World Reports top 50 tiers, after living in the Washington, D.C. area with some of the best of private and public school in the nation.  We’ve been exposed to what is said to be the best in the land in terms of schools.
Therefore it astounds me, and many parents I know, that in most conversations about how my own children's schools could improve, the overall response from those in charge is a patronizing pat on the head and assurances that “we’re from the government and we’re here to help you … now go away.”
With a “mine is better than yours” tone, educators too often flash their degrees (forgetting that many of us have a resume of our own).
Consider standardized testing today, which has been deified as the center of our educational system, no matter if children may need counseling later.
In my own childrens’ schools, huge signs are posted warning kids to "BE POSITIVE," "TAKE YOUR TIME," "REVIEW YOUR WORK"... as your future depends on it.
In response to complaints that too much class time was spent preparing for a test that only earns teacher bonuses and school dollars, our superintendent decided to incorporate this moment of time into kids’ overall grades.
So, now children in our school district, beginning in third grade can sit for the bar, as it were, to pass this colossal test to earn money for the nervous adults in the room.
God help them if they suffer from test anxiety.
This ignores the reality that a good teacher might help failing kids reach “C” level work, or that a bad teacher can browbeat kids or perhaps cheat to raise kids’ test scores for the cash. A better system would be to let parents vote on who deserves a bonus.
The new Common Core educational standards seem meager at best, perhaps because so much educational class time is dust in the wind as my children watch movies, presentations and create "discussion trees" while contemplating the evils of bullying, only to be sent home with hours of homework.
But to call and ask about the time management of the classroom is to put your children in danger of retaliation by a blustering teacher who has essentially transferred the work of educating your child back to you.
In my children's school it seems crafts supersede contemplation. Book reports are rare, while my children create presentations of items collected that reminded them of books in a can or a box, through a costume, a poster or in a power point.
I’m afraid that this generation may not know that it is possible to write more words than can fit into a text.

Modern educators also seem held hostage to national standard of disputable value, ignoring real complexities – like differing opinions on WHY wars began or ended – to teach THE answer to life’s toughest questions for the test.
Some classes, like world history, require gray areas.
And then there is math, where my children have learned that if you get the right answer using your own methods you are wrong.
Really?
If you look at Facebook you can understand the battle so many parents find themselves in when it comes to teachers who need a different profession. A friend of mine excitedly posted that she had avoided all the dud teachers this year. Immediately a world of parents sent out a sympathetic “LIKE.”
Why is it that being bad at your job is not enough to get you fired as a teacher? While the rest of us must produce value for our employers – or else – being bad at your job with questionable moral judgment isn’t even a speed bump. But it’s the children who get run over.
It would be one thing if all this “expert” control meant better test scores and higher academic achievement.
It doesn’t.
To truly reform schools, empower parents who both pick up the tab for their local schools and pick up the pieces in their children’s lives when schools fail.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/04/common-core-and-more-why-dont-parents-get-to-have-say-in-their-kids-education/#ixzz2dvJd5Scu

Al Qaeda

Problems with the Electoral College

Many observers believe the Electoral College introduces complications and potential problems into our political system. These concerns include some of the following

Grossly unequal distribution of campaign resources

Unequal voting power depending on where you live
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small states and only focus on big population centers.

Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all states give all of its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the greatest number of electoral votes.
For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College. Kimberling was the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election Administration.

Looking at the Numbers: Minority Rules
Just how many people elect the president of the United States? The answer may surprise you.
Consider the 2000 presidential elections. Even though more than 100 million people voted in the election, only a small portion of those votes in fact were decisive. Indeed, the results would have been exactly the same even if nearly 80 million of those voters would have stayed home.
Here's what we mean:

• Total number of votes cast nationwide in Presidential elections:
  • 105,396,641 in 2000
  • 131, 338,626 in 2008
• Total number of votes cast for the winner in their states won:
  • 26,353,058 in 30 states for George W. Bush
  • 39,908,351 in 29 states (including DC) for Barack Obama
• Total number of votes that did not factor in determining the winner of the president in their respective years:
  • To win the Electoral College in 2000, Bush needed only 21,835,615 votes out of a total of 105,396,641 votes.
  • To win the Electoral College in 2008, Obama needed only 39,908,351 votes out of a total of 131,338,626 votes.
• Percentage of votes that did not factor in determining the winner in their respective years:
  • 79.28% in 2000
  • 70.39% in 2008

The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes
The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.
Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not necessarily the small states, but rather they are states that are not viewed as competitive.
Since all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. As an example, Democratic candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.
The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.

Unbound electors
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor to a fourth degree felony. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

• Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
• Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
• California (Election Code §6906)
• Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
• Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
• Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
• District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
• Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
• Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
• Maine (21-A MRS §805)
• Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
• Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
• Michigan (MCL §168.47)
• Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
• Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
• Nebraska (§32-714)
• Nevada (NRS §298.050)
• New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
• North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
• Ohio (ORC §248.355)
• South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
• Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
• Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
• Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
• Virginia (§24.2-203)
• Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
• Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
• Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)

Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state's popular vote or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District's unfair voting rights.
Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they prersonally prefer, despite the general public's desire.
This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system. The electors from nearly half of the states can vote however they wish, regardless of the popular will of the state.
In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as a layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses.
There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility to a set of individual electors. Hundreds of thousands of votes can and have been violated by an individual elector, choosing to act on his or her own behalf instead of the behalf of the people.
As of the 2008 election, since the founding of the Electoral College, 157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates who they were designated to represent.

House of Representatives can choose the president
If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This could easily lead to a purely partisan battle, instead of an attempt to discover which candidate the citizens really prefer.
If the Senate and the House of Representatives reflect different majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged. This potential opposition in the presidential office would not be good for the stability of the country or the government.

Enforcement of a two-party system
Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel would do the best job. The Electoral College inadvertently reinforces this two party system, where third parties cannot enter the race without being tagged as "spoilers."
Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, the smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to take this support from one of the major parties. Few people will support a party that never wins, especially when they are supporting that party at the possible expense of their least favorite candidate taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).

Presidency can be won without a majority of the popular vote
As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876 respectively, only to see someone else walk into the White House.
As an even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to win both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one of the elections, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.
With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed.

Bailey Comment: This is a old chain email that has been going around forever. It maybe true or not. But if the government keeps on keeping on like their doing now this will probably happen!

These 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed.

 Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.

What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. 

 To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.  

Assad's 11-Year-Old Son May Be Taunting Obama on Facebook

A Facebook post reportedly written by the 11-year-old son of Syrian President Bashar Assad challenges America to attack Syria and calls U.S. soldiers "cowards."

"No one has soldiers like the ones we do in Syria," the post, appearing on an account under the name Hafez Assad, read. "America doesn't have soldiers, what it has is some cowards with new technology who claim themselves liberators.

"I can expect that some people may comment that America is more powerful than us, my response is that first you don't know what we have, second maybe they are stronger, maybe they will destroy the army, but they will never destroy these remnants and little bits of resistance, it's who we are."

The declaration drew several "likes" and comments from people who appear to be the children or grandchildren of other members of Assad's government, and many of them had changed their profile pictures to photos of Assad or his father, the former leader also named Hafez who ruled for three decades before his death in 2000.

Among the commenters are accounts that apparently belong to two children of Deputy Vice President Mohammed Nassif Khierbek, Ali and Sally, and to three children of a former deputy defense minister, Assef Shawkat, who was killed in a bombing in July 2012, according to The New York Times.

"Like father like son! Well said future President!" one comment read.

The Facebook account has not been confirmed to be that of Assad's son, but there are some elements of the page that make it a plausible possibility. For example, the account lists the owner as a graduate of a Montessori school in Damascus, a detail revealed in a February 2011 Vogue profile of Asma Assad, the child's mother. The piece has since been removed from the magazine's website, but was reposted by blogger Joshua Landis, a well-known scholar of Syrian politics.

However, other details listed on the Facebook page seem suspicious. It also claims that the owner is a graduate of Oxford University and a player for a Barcelona soccer team, neither of which 11-year-old Hafez Assad is likely to have on his resume, the Times reported.

But if the Facebook page is, in fact, a hoax, it's a highly elaborate one built with the help of many other fake accounts purporting to be Assad's cousins and friends.

The author signed off by comparing a potential American missile attack to the 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, a close Syrian ally.

"I just want them to attack sooo much, because I want them to make this huge mistake of beginning something that they don't know the end of it," he wrote.

"What did Hezbollah have back then? Some street fighters and some small rockets and a pile of guns, but they had belief, In theirselves [sic] and in their country and that’s exactly what’s gonna happen to America if it chooses invasion because they don’t know our land like we do, no one does, victory is ours in the end no matter how much time it takes."




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hafez-assad-son-bashar/2013/08/30/id/523194?s=al&promo_code=14B8B-1#ixzz2dgYpaIhU
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Problem Children

Fukushima

Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no

President Obama apparently is leaving the door open to moving ahead with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it, adding to the confusion over the president’s evolving position.
The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime.
One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.
Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.
Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.
The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them.
However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Fox News, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.
This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State John Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in the interagency process. “Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
The State Department official emphasized that all of the president’s national security advisers were in agreement as of Friday night on the need to proceed with strikes – and that the president ultimately will.
At the least, Obama’s remarks do appear to leave him wiggle room. In the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that he believes he does “have the authority” to carry out an attack without the support of Congress. He said, though, that “the country will be stronger” if Congress weighs in.
A White House statement released on Saturday, following a phone call between Obama and French President Francois Hollande, gave another indication as to the president’s intentions. The statement said the two leaders agree “that the international community must deliver a resolute message to the Assad regime” and that “those who violate this international norm will be held accountable by the world.”
Fox News’ James Rosen and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/obama-leaving-door-open-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-votes-no/#ixzz2ddB8LLoe

Congress needs a Brain

British Parliament Debates War With Syria, U.S. Congress Vacations

August 29, 2013 by Sam Rolley

As chatter about the prospect of the United States going maverick in Syria continues, the Nation’s international peers are receiving praise from some U.S. lawmakers for taking a more thoughtful approach to intervening in the Middle Eastern conflict.
Representative Scott Rigell (R-Va.) lauded the British Parliament on Thursday, noting that U.S. lawmakers are still on recess— despite the President’s war rhetoric— while the Brit lawmakers have robustly debated a resolution on military intervention in Syria.
The Parliament, he said, is having a debate, while the United States is not. “Given the history our two Nations,’ he continued, “there is a bit of irony here.”
Rigell said that he is happy to see that the evident slowing in British momentum towards military action has made the White House pull back “just a bit.” The lawmaker also noted that Congressional approval prior to intervention would be a sign of strength for the U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also noted the absence of Congressional debate on the matter.
Cruz tweeted:

NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark

A comment by President Obama that Vladimir Putin looked "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom" apparently "infuriated" the Russian president, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.

Editor's Note: 22 Hidden Taxes and Fees Set to Hit You With Obamacare. Read the Guide to Protect Yourself.

"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.

The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."

But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.

"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-infuriated-Putin-bored/2013/08/28/id/522798?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dP4BDXxm
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress… In 2007

August 28, 2013 by Sam Rolley

If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe Biden will attempt to have him impeached?
On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage.
In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without first gaining Congressional approval.
Via Seacoast Online, November 29, 2007:

Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time.
Chris Matthews: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?”
Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.”

Syria

Jesse Jackson and the Tea Party

By Katherine Connell, The National Review
Jesse Jackson has no doubt that on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Republican opposition to President Obama’s policies is motivated by racial animus reminiscent of the Civil War-era South. “The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy, it’s the Fort Sumter tea party,” Jackson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush.
Jackson, who Thrush describes as the man “who more than anyone occupies the no man’s land between his mentor King and Obama,” is “absolutely” convinced that attempts to thwart the president’s agenda are motivated by his race.
The question “To what degree is the partisan gridlock that is frustrating his attempts to govern racially driven?” is one that President Obama himself is “begging to ask,” according to Pulitzer Prize–winning author Taylor Branch. The president can’t broach the topic, Branch said, because “the slightest mention of race could alienate the millions of white Americans who voted for him.”
The half-dozen aides Thrush interviewed for the article disagree with this assessment, saying that they have never heard Obama suggest that race is a factor in the opposition he faces from the GOP.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/27/unreal-jesse-jackson-says-tea-party-resurrection-confederacy%E2%80%99#ixzz2dD1Kehfw

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

Yesterday a U.S Flag whose stars were replaced with a picture of President Obama resurfaced at the March On Washington.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/26/obama-flag-resurfaces-march-washington?cmpid=NL_foxnation#ixzz2dA3VfM55

Short Answers to Common Questions about Social Security

Published: May 2013

Developed to accompany
Social Security Finances: Findings of the 2013 Trustees Report
Social Security Brief #42, May 2013

1. Who are Social Security’s trustees and why do they issue an annual report? Social Security has six trustees: the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, of Health and Human Services; the Social Security Commissioner; and two public trustees, who by law must be from different political parties, are appointed by the President, and must be confirmed by the Senate. They issue an annual report on Social Security’s finances to give Congress and the public ample time to consider any changes that may be warranted to keep the program’s income and outgo in balance over the entire 75-year period for which Social Security’s financial estimates are made.
2. How can the trustees know what’s going to happen 75 years from now? They can’t; no one can. Still, they provide essential guidance to policymakers responsible for ensuring that Social Security can pay all scheduled benefits. So the trustees make three long-range financial forecasts — high-cost, low-cost, and intermediate — and use the intermediate estimate as the basis for projecting income, outgo, and possible imbalances. The one sure thing is that the trustees’ 75-year estimates can never be precisely accurate and will change from year to year.
3. The trustees talk about a projected 75-year shortfall as a “percent of payroll.” What do they mean? Why not just talk about dollars? Workers’ earnings — employers’ payrolls — are the main source of Social Security financing. Calculating program costs as a percentage of the payrolls covered by Social Security avoids the complications that would arise from using dollar figures to measure the cost of one set of benefits in one time period versus another set of benefits in another time period when the value of a dollar is different.
4. Last year the trustees projected that the 75-year shortfall would average 2.67 percent of payroll. This year they’re projecting 2.72 percent of payroll. Why the difference? The main reason for the change is the one-year advance in the 75-year projection period, which is now 2013-2087. The substitution of a relatively high-cost year (2087) for a lower-cost year (2012) inevitably increases the projected shortfall somewhat, unless offset by other factors. The trustees noted that the projected date when Social Security’s reserves will be depleted (if Congress takes no action in the meantime) remains unchanged: 2033.
5. How have the Great Recession and slow recovery affected Social Security? Because of high unemployment and stagnant wages, income from workers’ earnings has been somewhat lower than expected. And because many laid-off workers find themselves forced to claim Social Security as soon as they can, outgo for benefits has been somewhat higher than expected.
6. So do economic downturns doom Social Security? On the contrary, Social Security’s long-term financing enables the program to ride out even sustained downturns in a volatile market economy, just as it was designed to do. During rough times Social Security functions as a giant economic shock absorber. In 2012 Social Security pumped nearly $775 billion into the economy in the form of benefit payments that maintained the purchasing power of more than 56 million beneficiaries and their families.
7. But isn’t Social Security contributing to the national debt? Social Security cannot contribute to the debt because by law it cannot borrow money. Since 1935 Social Security has collected $16.3 trillion and paid out $13.6 trillion, leaving a balance of $2.7 trillion in the trust funds at the end of 2012.
8. But last year the program spent more on benefits than it collected in payroll taxes. So is it going broke? No. Social Security has three sources of income: payroll taxes, income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients, and interest earned on its reserves. Social Security is still accumulating reserves through interest earned on the money in its trust funds. The reserves are projected to increase from $2.7 trillion at the end of 2012 to $2.9 trillion at the end of 2020. After that, if Congress has not acted in the meantime to increase revenues or lower benefits, the reserves would start to be drawn down to help pay benefits.
9. But the media sometimes refer to Social Security’s “cash-flow imbalance.” Is it running out of cash? No. The term “cash flow” as used in the unified federal budget refers to the program’s annual income and outgo without counting interest earned by the trust fund reserves. If interest is ignored, income was less than outgo in 2012. But interest is part of Social Security’s total income, and the U.S. Treasury is firmly obligated to pay the interest due to the trust funds – an obligation just as firm as the commitment of the United States to any other holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. With interest income included, Social Security had a $54 billion surplus in 2012.
10. If the reserves are used up to help pay benefits, will Social Security be bankrupt? No. “Bankruptcy” means having no funds. Although the trustees estimate that the reserves will be depleted in 2033 (but only if Congress has not acted in the meantime), revenue continuing to come into Social Security from payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients would cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. It is this shortfall — not bankruptcy — that lawmakers need to address.
11. Are there ways to fix Social Security’s shortfall without cutting benefits? Yes. Many public opinion surveys, including a recent NASI study,[1] have found that most Americans would rather pay somewhat more to keep Social Security strong than cut benefits for current or future beneficiaries. For example, gradually increasing the contribution rate from 6.2% to 7.2% and gradually removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security could address the shortfall and pay for modest benefit improvements.
12. Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will soon be depleted. What can be done? Social Security pays benefits from two legally separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Of the 6.2% of earnings that workers and employers each pay to Social Security, 5.3% goes to OASI and 0.9% goes to DI. Policymakers could keep DI in balance for the next 75 years by raising the DI rate from 0.9% to 1.1%. Alternatively, they could temporarily reallocate part of the OASI tax rate to the DI fund to equalize the two funds over the next 20 years. Congress has reallocated the tax rate between DI and OASI many times in the past without controversy and could do so again.[2]
13. Will the retirement of the baby boomers overwhelm Social Security? No. The baby boomers’ retirement did not catch Social Security by surprise. Benefit reductions that were enacted 30 years ago, including gradually raising the age of eligibility for full benefits from 65 to 67, are still phasing in and have slowed spending for future benefits. In addition, the boomers’ tax contributions throughout their working years have helped cover the cost of their retirement.
14. Some commentators claim that Social Security is simply unaffordable. Is this true? A widely accepted way to evaluate the affordability of Social Security — or other major systems such as health care, education, or defense — is as a share of the entire economy, or gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security was 5.0% of GDP in 2012 and is expected to increase to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, when all of the baby boomers will have retired; then it is expected to decline slightly and level off at 6.0% to 6.2% thereafter. By way of comparison, the projected increase until 2035 is smaller than the increase in national spending for public education when the baby boomers were children. Social Security is affordable, and surveys show that Americans are willing to pay for it.

Could Syria Spark WWIII?

By Alan Caruba

Who recalls that one of the reasons Americans approved the invasions of Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had used poison gas to kill Kurds?

Now we are told that Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s strongman, has used poison gas to defeat the rebels trying to overthrow him, but the attack killed civilians and came in the wake of news that Assad has been steadily gaining ground over the rebels.

The war has seen the slaughter of an estimated 100,000 Syrians. Why use poison gas at this point?

The U.S. was drawn into the Vietnam War with the false assertion that forces of the north had fired on U.S. naval ships, but it later came out that the attack was minor and hardly constituted a reason to make the huge commitment that led to the long war; one that it lost. Lyndon B. Johnson got the nation into that war with what is widely acknowledged to have been, at best, an exaggeration of the incident.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, while America was still engaged in Afghanistan, was yet another ill-fated decision. Indeed, it can be argued that after driving al Qaeda out of Afghanistan following 9/11 there was no reason for American military to remain. The U.S. began to depart Iraq in 2011 and it has returned to chaos as the Sunni-Shiite conflict grinds on.

Was the poison attack a “false flag” incident intended to draw the U.S. into yet another Middle East war?

Is there any reason to believe that U.S. military involvement in Syria would have a better outcome than Iraq or Afghanistan?

Naturally, though, observers will speculate who might have initiated the attack, but most certainly one can rule out Russia and Iran, allies of Assad. The Israelis have no reason to want to see an expanded war in Syria. Israel has had a de facto peace with the Assad father and son dictators since the 1967 war.

Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, would surely want to see a quick end to the Syrian civil war because all are trying to deal with a humanitarian disaster involving over a million refugees that have fled the conflict, but there is little reason to attribute a false flag operation to them.

Would the rebels—an assortment of Syrian freedom fighters augmented by al Qaeda groups—use poison gas to draw the U.S. and the West into the conflict? The answer to that is yes.

The most striking attribute of the Obama administration has been its failure to make any good judgments about the Middle East other than to get out or “lead from behind.” Much of this is attributable to the foreign policy advisors he has gathered around him; high level appointees of his national security council and in the CIA have a very Islam-friendly attitude that led them to believe that the U.S. could encourage democracy in a region that has no democratic history to build upon. His latest appointment, the new United Nations ambassador is missing in action; no one seems to know where she is.

The fact is that U.S. presidents have been making bad judgments when it comes to war since LBJ. Clearly, the decisions by Bush41 and Bush43 have not been met with success and, just as clearly, Americans do not want to see our military committed to another conflict in the Middle East.

Obama’s decision to support the ouster of Mubarak, the former Egyptian dictator, led to a short term in office by a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood that, in turn, led to massive demonstrations against him and his removal by the Egyptian military. By then the nation was suffering an economic breakdown with hundreds of thousands facing starvation. Only humanitarian support from Saudi Arabia has prevented this. The U.S. continues to dither over aid to the Egyptian military that has been a reliable ally for decades.

Even Turkey that has had a secular government elected an Islamist who has become unhinged by events. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went from being Obama’s touted friend and partner to an offensive anti-Semite claiming Israel was behind Syria’s civil war. Obama has consistently misjudged who to support in the region.

As this is being written, American navel assets are being moved closer to Syria and American military have set up a command post in Jordan in the event an intervention is deemed necessary.

Writing in The Washington Times, Judson Phillips says, “This is Obama’s perfect war. It is perfect because there are no American interests involved, no reason for America to be involved, and no matter who wins the Syrian civil war, America loses.”
Most certainly, whether he decides to get in or stay out, it would come at a time when the Obama administration has forfeited any claim to leadership in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. At this point, that is likely to be seen as Obama’s greatest legacy.

A century ago in 1913, neither Europeans, nor Americans could have imagined that World War I would begin the following year. The situation in Syria reeks of the same uncertainties and outcome.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

NSA

(IBD) CSI ObamaCare: Affordable Care Act To Have Own Police - You Have The Right To Remain Silent

Police State: The administration is building a detective  squad that will target consumers and companies that don't follow ObamaCare's  rules. The game of "good cop, bad cop" has arrived in American health care.
It was bad enough to know that an Internal Revenue Service that targets the  political opponents of the Obama administration between partying on the taxpayer  dime would be in charge of monitoring compliance with ObamaCare's individual  mandate via our tax returns.
Now, the Daily Mail, which lodged a Freedom of Information Act with Health  and Human Services, reports that the agency has hired a bevy of criminal  investigators as we continue to learn what is in the Orwellian-named Affordable  Care Act.
Never did we imagine that buying insurance and going to the doctor or  providing coverage to employees would come under the full-time purview of  federal criminal investigators.
On the day in 2010 that President Obama signed the bill into law, HHS got  authority from the Office of Personnel Management to make as many as 1,814 new  hires under an emergency "Direct Hiring Authority" order.
The agency was authorized to hire 50 criminal investigators to ensure  compliance with mandatory provisions and regulations. But as is typical with an  administration with no respect for the Constitution and the law, HHS  unilaterally upped that number to 86.
Of course these investigators won't be digging into the Obama  administration's lack of compliance with its own law. A president doesn't have  the legal authority to decide what parts of the law he wants to obey; the  Constitution does not grant him that authority.
But that's exactly what Obama is doing with Obama-Care.

Rush Limbaugh Inks New 3-Year Deal, Contract 'Really Never in Doubt'

Calling himself America's "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector," conservative talk superstar Rush Limbaugh announced a new three-year deal on Friday with Cumulus Media, which includes a move from WABC to WOR in New York.

"The bottom line is, no change for you," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Wherever you're listening to this radio show today, you're gonna be able to hear it on Jan. 2, 3, whenever I get back from the traditional Christmas break. There will be no interruption to you. There will be no change. The radio program is as strong or stronger than ever. It will be everywhere you are used to listening to it now."

Politico reported last month that Cumulus Media would not renew "The Rush Limbaugh Show" after negotiations with Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes the program.

"The last month, if you read Politico or anything that linked to Politico or CNN or ABC or anywhere else, you were reading that it was over for me. That I was bad news for broadcast stations," Limbaugh told listeners. "They could not sell advertising and all of this was because of me and the controversy I engender and therefore I wasn't gonna be gone overnight, but three to four years, and that's it. Fini, totala completa, out of there, gone. Once and for all the left would be rid of me."

On Friday, Limbaugh said that the yearlong negotiations ended this week with a new deal, and that "it was really never in doubt, but I don't want to do my own version of negotiating here."

He compared his situation to President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their health insurance.

"If you like this station, you get to keep this station," he said. "I'm not gonna take this station away from you and force you to go to a new one, as Obama's doing with your healthcare. He said if you like your doctor, you like your plan, you get to keep it. No, you don't. You're gonna lose your doctor; you're gonna lose your plan."

Then he dubbed himself the "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector." He attributed the move from WABC in the highly coveted New York market to the fact that WOR is owned by his syndication partner, Clear Channel Communications.

He added, "And as the Doctor of Democracy, the deal you have with your doctor isn't changing. You get to keep your doctor. You get to keep your plan. You get to keep your station. Nothing's changing, and it really never was gonna change," he explained. "These were just public negotiations, which normally don't occur in public. But the media got involved.

"So the point is, the past month in the drive-by media I was over, it was finished," he said. "You better listen while you can because I was gone, I was ineffective, I was a has-been, it was old news, whatever happened on this program."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rush-Limbaugh-Inks-New-3-Year-Deal-Contract-%27Really-Never-in-Doubt-/2013/08/23/id/522035?s=al&promo_code=14A20-1#ixzz2ctcRgIOJ
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Banks robbed Americans during bailouts - don’t be fooled again

by Jason Kendall, contributing columnist | June 05, 2013

In between parties, vacations, repealing Obamacare for the 37th time and naming post offices, someone in Congress has an idea. Apparently, the bailouts of the American banking industry did not have the outcome Congress desired. Shocking that the strategy of blindly handing billions of dollars to bankers has yet to do much good for anyone except, of course, bankers.
The Terminating Bailouts for Taxpayer Fairness Act was introduced in the Senate in April, and if it survives from the onslaught of banking lobbyists, the bill may be able to do some good.
The act would require banks with more than $500 billion in assets to keep capital reserves of about 15 percent, about twice the current amount. Simple enough, but if you don't understand the impact of this on big banks, don't worry - just look at their response and you can see the threat this poses.
Before you question the motives of this bill, let's take a look at the 2008 bailout and what the banks have done with your money.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 gave billions to banks, whether they were financially healthy or not. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson threatened Congress that America would lose more than $5.5 trillion in wealth and the "world economy" would collapse if Wall Street did not get $700 billion. It was such a scary moment that the Senate added another $150 billion - you know, to cover the vig.
Well, what happened?
Let's start with the money loaned to help reduce mortgage deficiencies; this was one of the main justifications for the bailout. Most large banks took bailout money but failed to modify home loans. This is why they are constantly being sued.
Next, millions in bailout funds went directly to pay bonuses for bankers. Priceless.
Even more interesting is that your money is probably in the banks of the Federal Reserve. Up until 2008, the money banks had to give to the Fed gained no interest. The money was there to help stabilize banks. By not charging interest, banks would invest any access money, over what they had to put into the Fed, into the marketplace. Now that the Fed is paying interest, why would they invest that money elsewhere? Before the 2008 bailout, only about $2 billion was held in the reserve - now there is more than $1.6 trillion earning $5 billion in interest yearly.
The Fed printed money, Congress gave it to banks and the banks then returned it to the Fed in order to earn interest on that money.
Lastly, and to lock your children further into debt, in 2010, Congress and the president established the Small Business Lending Fund, loaning community banks $30 billion to invest. What did these banks do? They paid back their TARP loans from the 2008 bailout. The banks were given taxpayer money to loan but the money was instead used to pay back loans that the taxpayers had originally loaned them. They were bailed out of their bailout.
Former President George W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." The saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Americans were not fooled - they were

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue.  Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.
Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades.  It must be one or the other.
Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees.   If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:
“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.  They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers.  These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”
Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget.   What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions.  “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud.  The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years.  Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”
Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036.  So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?
The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted.  And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Rand Paul: Obama 'Flouting the Law' by Continuing Aid to Egypt

   President Barack Obama is "directly flouting the law" by not immediately cutting off financial aid to Egypt following the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says.

Paul pointed to the federal law that says the United States will not give money to countries operating under a coup — a designation the Obama administration has not given.

"There never should have been any debate. The law's explicit. If you have a military coup or a military takeover, the aid has to end unless you want a president who disobeys the law," Paul told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"This president is directly flouting the law and he's in direct disobeyance of the law. So, no, there's no question. The aid has to end.


Paul, who is considering a run for president in 2016, said following the law of the land is not up for debate.

"You can debate whether aid's a good idea and it's a bad idea, but the law you don't get to debate. You have to change the law if you don't like the law," he said.

"All of these Republicans who stand up and beat their chest and say, 'Oh, we're the party that's the rule of law and we criticize the Muslim Brotherhood for not obeying the rule of law.'

"Well, it's a valid criticism only if you obey the rule of law. … Our law says when an elected government is toppled, there's no wiggle room. You have to end the aid."

Rand likened the coup debate to a fight among youngsters.

"It's more like third-grade playground. … People say, 'Well, yeah, it's a coup, but you can't make me say it's a coup.' So it's a bunch of third-graders on the playground saying you can't make me," he said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-obama-aid/2013/08/22/id/521844?s=al&promo_code=149F7-1#ixzz2cp07XiNM
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Filner & Weiner

Is US Paying for UN to Teach Hate?

Controversial documentary explores Gaza camp teaching Palestinian children to hate Jews, glorify martyrs and support jihad — a message it is able to convey thanks in part to funding provided by a United Nations agency whose largest contributors are US taxpayers. Bailey Comment:When has the US Government ever ask the American Tax Payer if they want to give any money at all to the UN? The tax payer does not control the purse strings, the government does!

Perry Seeks Obamacare Cash, Despite Opposition to Law

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the country's most outspoken critics of Obamacare, is now in discussions with the administration about qualifying for $100 million in funds from the health care program to help the state's disabled and elderly.

According to Politico, Texas health officials are working to win approval from the administration to fit Obamacare's optional Community First Choice program into the state's existing Medicaid framework.

"Efforts are underway to develop and submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for participation," a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, told Politico.

The program is designed to provide more community-based support and in-home treatment to the disabled and elderly, and 12,000 Texans would stand to benefit.

The move surprised some in Texas, especially after the state refused to set up an insurance exchange or expand Medicaid as envisioned in the new health care law. Earlier this month, Perry also publicly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for promoting Obamacare during a visit to Texas.

Now critics are accusing Perry of hypocrisy, something that could come back to haunt the retiring governor in the event he decides to make a second presidential bid in 2016.

Ginny Goldman, director of the Texas Organizing Project, told Politico that "it's simply a shame that Perry is willing to accept $100 million in Affordable Care Act dollars that would help some" in the state, while rejecting billions in Obamacare funds through a Medicaid expansion that could help 1.5 million Texans.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/perry-obamacare-cash-opposition/2013/08/21/id/521561?s=al&promo_code=149A1-1#ixzz2cgo2Ec6f
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Hillary

Benghazi decision 'surely is a Clinton protection operation'

Charles Krauthammer told viewers Tuesday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that the State Department's reinstatement of four officials who had been put on leave after the Benghazi attacks illustrates the Department's refusal to hold anyone accountable.
 "This is the definition of how to conduct a stonewall," Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said of Secretary of State John Kerry's decision to put the officials back to work.
 "The new Secretary of State looks at this and says, essentially, these people were not responsible, or they don't really carry any accountability - they are back on the job, as you say, without ever missing a paycheck, and no one is held responsible."
Krauthammer added, "whatever the intent was, it surely is a Clinton protection operation, in effect."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/20/charles-krauthammer-kerry-benghazi-decision-surely-is-clinton-protection/#ixzz2castA7ep