Tag Archives: John McCain

British Intelligence: Obama born in Kenya; CIA’s DNA test shows Dunhams not his grandparents

Michael Shrimpton is a British barrister (attorney), an adviser to British intelligence, and a serious person.

He also is a contributing columnist for the blog, Veterans Today. This is his biographical sketch on Veterans Today:

Michael Shrimpton

Shrimpton has his own blog, The Shrimpton Report. His email address is michael@mshrimpton.co.uk. And Wikipedia used to have an entry on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton), but if you go to that URL, you’ll get the messsage: “This page has been deleted”.

After you’ve read this post, you’ll know why Wikipedia scrubbed its page on Michael Shrimpton.

Shrimpton was a speaker at a forum, date unknown, but probably sometime in 2008 (more on this later). Beginning at the 1:42 mark of the video below, Shrimpton dropped a bombshell about Obama.

Shrimpton made the following startling claims:

  1. Although Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is said to have been born on August 4, 1961, he actually was born in 1960.
  2. Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not pregnant in July 1961.
  3. Although BHO is said to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, he actually was born in Mombasa, Kenya, which was then British territory, which means British intelligence has his records.
  4. The C.I.A. surreptiously took a DNA sample of Obama at a fundraising dinner and ran a test, but could not match Obama’s DNA with his [maternal] grandparents, the Dunhams.
  5. Former New York governor and GOP presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani told Shrimpton at a recent lunch that he (Giuliani) knows all about this. Giuliani had hoped he would be the GOP presidential candidate and he’d then use the information against the Democrats.
  6. The Clintons (Bill and Hillary) also know about this.

For the rest of the 1½ hour video, Shrimpton talked about British politics and the European Union. However, at the 1:09:30 mark, a man in the audience asked Shrimpton a question about Obama and Kenya. In his response, beginning at about the 1:11:55 mark, Shrimpton alluded to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign as if it was ongoing as he spoke, which suggests that the forum took place in 2008. Shrimpton also made these additional claims:

  1. He believes, given the above British intelligence on the year (1960, not 1961) and place (Kenya, not USA) of Obama’s birth, Obama would “soon be pressured into withdrawing” from the presidential race. With the benefit of hindsight, we of course know that didn’t happen.
  2. Senator John Edwards also knows because Shrimpton had briefed him.
  3. Former CIA director (under Bill Clinton) also knows. Shrimpton does not name him. Clinton had 3 successive CIA directors: James Woolsey, John Deutsch, and George Tenet.
  4. The Kenyan government, of course, knows.
  5. The UK newspaper Daily Telegraph also knows.
  6. The Honolulu press is aware that Obama’s birth records in Honolulu’s Queens Medical Center are fake. The Honolulu Advertiser knows this.
  7. Sen. John McCain knows.
  8. British Intelligence knows because MI5 got the Nairobi Special Intelligence files when Kenya became independent.
  9. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations from 1997 to 2006, also knows.
  10. Shrimpton also said something very strange — that Obama’s half-sister is actually his full sister, and that the sister is “missing.” (The only “half sister” of Obama about whom we are told is Maya Soetoro-Ng, the daughter of Stanley Ann Dunham and her Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro.)


H/t Gaia Media, via Birther Report.


Arizona bill protects businesses that refuse to serve same-sex weddings

Do you remember Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado who was ordered by administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer to bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals or face fines, even though doing so violates Phillips’ Christian religious beliefs?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado

The Arizona state legislator just passed a bill, SB 1062: Exercise of Religion, to protect business owners from what happened to Phillips.

Catherine Briggs reports for LifeSiteNews, Feb. 25, 2014, that SB 1062 would grant business owners the right to refuse service to clients on the basis of religious objections.

In the past few years, there have been several cases of business owners facing lawsuits after refusing to provide their services to homosexual couples at their “weddings.” This bill would prevent such suits from being filed in Arizona and would protect objecting business owners from facing heavy fines.

The bill, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer, has been lambasted as discriminatory by its opponents, but its defenders say it’s a necessary protection for religious freedom.

As we would expect, Democrats oppose SB 1062, including all four of Arizona’s Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s religion and belief program, said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors.”  The ACLU opposes the legislation. 

But the bill also is opposed by Republicans, including:

  • Arizona’s two federal senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have urged Gov. Brewer to veto SB 1062.
  • Of Arizona’s Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, one has refused to comment while the other four have not yet commented.

The reaction to SB 1062 from the media has been heated to say the least.  In an interview with CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo, Kelly Fiedorek, attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, tried explaining the bill and how it would protect religious freedom. She says:

“[There’s] a basic difference between denying someone a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza or selling someone a pencil versus forcing someone to use their creative ability to create a message to support an event, to support an idea that goes against their beliefs. For example, we would not force a Muslim to participate in a Koran-burning ceremony. We wouldn’t ask a black photographer and force them to go take a picture of a KKK event. This is America and in America we should be able to live freely and not be forced to endorse ideas.”

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, responded to the fiery reaction to the passing of SB 1062 in a statement on Saturday:

“The attacks on SB 1062 show politics at its absolute worse. They represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate. Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting. I urge Governor Brewer to send a clear message to the country that in Arizona, everyone, regardless of their faith, will be protected in Arizona by signing SB 1062.”

The bill now awaits Gov. Jan Brewer’s signing or veto sometime this week. Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year during a self-imposed freeze on signing legislation until a budget was passed for the 2014 fiscal year.

According to CNN, Brewer is expected to veto what the liberal media insist on calling “the anti-gay bill” because “Sources say she is concerned about this bill taking away from other issues she is now pressing, such as overhauling Arizona’s child protective services system.”

Here’s contact info for Gov. Brewer:

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer
Arizona Governor
Executive Tower
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone Numbers
Phoenix Office: (602) 542-4331
Tucson Office: (520) 628-6580
In-State Toll Free: 1-800-253-0883 (outside Maricopa County only)

Fax Number: (602) 542-1381

To send an email, click here.


Obama admin considering a war against Syria, again

Dr. Eowyn:

We the People stopped Pres. Lucifer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, from waging war against Syria last year. Now he’s trying to do it again.

Once again, we must mobilize and stop this demonic warmonger and his equally demonic accomplice, John McCain. Spread the word! Let your family, friends, and acquaintances know, via email, Twitter, Facebook…. Let’s stop this SOB.

See also the posts FOTM’s published last year on our “Syria War” page. Click here.


Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Free Syrian ArmyRebel insurgents of the Free Syrian Army

In his essay of Feb. 17, 2014,The United States of Decline,” for the National Review, Deroy Murdock, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University, writes that Obama’s Syrian policy is “a miserable flop”:

“… embattled Syrians flee the city of Homs while they and their United Nations protectors dodge incoming mortar shells. This sorry spectacle has exposed Obama’s Syrian policy as a miserable flop. So does the fact that Syrian president Bashar Assad has handed over only 4 percent of the chemical weapons that his deal last September with Obama and Vladimir Putin was supposed to neutralize. According to GOP senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Secretary of State John Kerry privately conceded to them that Obama’s approach in Syria has failed.”

After bringing the United States to the…

View original 518 more words

Great Op-Ed From Forbes.

Keep pushing this folks. Liberalism is on the run. Skippy lied and progressivism will die.   :lol:



Obamacare Will Be Repealed Well In Advance Of The 2014 Elections

Steven Hayward, Contributor        http://www.forbes.com        OP/ED

Prediction: even ifHealthCare.gov is fixed by the end of the month (unlikely), Obamacare is going to be repealed well in advance of next year’s election.  And if the website continues to fail, the push for repeal—from endangered Democrats—will occur very rapidly.  The website is a sideshow: the real action is the number of people and businesses who are losing their health plans or having to pay a lot more.  Fixing the website will only delay the inevitable.

It is important to remember why it was so important for Obama to promise repeatedly that “if you like your health insurance/doctor, you can keep your health insurance/doctor.”  Cast your mind back to the ignominious collapse of Hillarycare in 1994.  Hillarycare came out of the box in September 1993 to high public support according to the early polls.  This was not a surprise.  Opinion polls for decades have shown a large majority of Americans support the general idea of universal health coverage.  But Hillarycare came apart as the bureaucratic details came out, the most important one being that you couldn’t be sure you’d be able to keep your doctors or select specialists of your choice.  The Clintons refused to consider a compromise, but even with large Democratic Senate and House majorities the bill was so dead it was never brought up for a vote.

Remember “Harry and Louise”?  Obama did, which is why he portrayed Obamacare as simply expanding coverage to the uninsured, and improving coverage for the underinsured while leaving the already insured undisturbed.  But the redistributive arithmetic of Obamacare’s architecture could never add up, which is what the bureaucrats knew early on—as early as 2010 according to many documents that have leaked.  The wonder is that Obama’s political team didn’t see this coming and prepare a pre-emptive strategy for dealing with the inevitable exposure of the duplicity at the heart of Obamacare’s logic.  Now that people are losing their insurance and finding that they may not be able to keep their doctor after all, Obamacare has become the domestic policy equivalent of the Iraq War: a protracted fiasco that is proving fatal to a president’s credibility and approval rating.  The only thing missing is calling in FEMA to help fix this Category-5 political disaster.

Senate Democrats endangered for re-election will lead the charge for repeal perhaps as soon as January, after they get an earful over the Christmas break.

(WSJ: ‘Obamacare Dozen’ flee for political cover…)

They’ll call it “reform,” and clothe it in calls for delaying the individual mandate and allowing people and businesses to keep their existing health insurance policies.  But it is probably too late to go back in many cases.  With the political damage guaranteed to continue, the momentum toward repeal will be unstoppable.  Democrats will not want to face the voters next November with the albatross of Obamacare.

The politics of the repeal effort will be a game theorist’s dream.  Tea Party Republicans will resist “reforms” to Obamacare in favor of complete repeal.  Democrats will try to turn the tables and set up Republicans as obstacles to reform, hoping to inoculate themselves prospectively from mayhem at the polls next November. The House might want to insist that the Senate go first; after all, it was the Senate version of the bill that the House had to swallow after Scott Brown’s election in January 2010.  The House can rightly insist that the Senate needs to clean up the mess they made.  Obama may well give Capitol Hill Democrats a pass on a repeal vote, and veto any bill that emerges.  He’ll never face the voters again.

This wouldn’t be the first time that a health care entitlement was repealed.  The same thing happened in the late 1980s with catastrophic coverage for seniors.  Because seniors were made to pay for their benefits under that scheme, the uproar forced Congress to repeal the measure barely a year after it went into effect.  Obamacare looks to be on the same political trajectory, and for the same reason.  Obamacare represents the crisis of big government; the limits of administrative government have finally been breached.  For the first time ever, some polls are showing a majority of Americans doubting the goal of universal health coverage.

The hazard of the moment is that a compromise “reform” that drops the mandate and attempts to restore the insurance status quo ante could leave us with an unfunded expansion of Medicaid and a badly disrupted private insurance market.  Republicans should avoid both the political traps and a new fiscal time bomb by being ready with a serious replacement policy, based on the premium support tax credit ideas that John McCain advocated (poorly) in 2008.  While anxious liberals are in dismay, they should recognize that Obamacare may well have achieved its chief purpose of making universal or at least greatly expanded health coverage a fixture of American social policy. The cost to liberalism may prove fatal, however.

  ~Steve~                                   http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2013/11/11/obamacare-will-be-repealed-well-in-advance-of-the-2014-elections/

McCain ain’t leaving the Senate – ever


A month ago, warmonger RINO John McCain hinted that he may retire in 2016.

He was just toying with us, yanking our chains.

Instead of retiring, he’s doing the exact opposite.

The Washington Post reports that this morning, on KFYI-AM in Phoenix, Arizona, McCain said he is considering running for another term in 2016, when he would be 80 years old: “I’m seriously thinking about maybe giving another opportunity for you to vote for or against me in a few years from now. I’m seriously giving that a lot of thought.”

Radio host Barry Young didn’t believe his ears. So he asked McCain to clarify if he was saying he might run again.

McCain said: “That would not be wrong.”

Politicians don’t ever retire. They leave office when they’re carted off in a coffin. The allure of power is that compelling.

And now you will have to excuse me while I go to the bathroom and puke. svomit_100-121


McCain hints at retiring in 2016

john-mccain-lord-of-the-tarp1Warner Todd Huston reports for Breitbart.com, Sept. 14, 2013, that Washington is abuzz with the rumor that RINO Arizona senator John McCain will retire in 2016.

First elected to the Senate in 1987 after Barry Goldwater vacated the seat, if McCain indeed retires in 2016, he would have been a senator for nearly 30 years — which definitely is *not* what our Founding Fathers had in mind for “citizen legislators.”

In an interview with the Hollywood-centric website The Wrap, McCain floated the idea of retirement, saying, “The president and I, he’s in his last term, I’m probably in mine, the relationship we have had over the past three years is quite good. Quite good.”

McCain made the off-the-cuff comment when the interview he was giving to The Wrap was interrupted by some Obama supporters who thanked him for supporting the POS in the White House on Syria.

But when pressed, McCain became coy, saying he hasn’t really made any final decisions: “Nah, I don’t know. I was trying to make a point. I have to decide in about two years so I don’t have to make a decision. I don’t want to be one of these old guys that should’ve shoved off.”

Give that old RINO and warmonger a shove.

Tell him you want him gone by 2016, if not sooner, by clicking here!

John McCain~Eowyn

UPDATE (Oct. 22, 2013):

He lied.

See “McCain ain’t leaving the Senate – ever.”

Senators who voted for Syrian war got more defense industry $

sell your soulLast Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, in a bipartisan 10-7 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution granting Obama authority to conduct military strikes war on Syria.

Approving the Syrian resolution are 3 Republicans and 7 Democrats:

  • Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
  • Bob Corker (R-TN)
  • John McCain (R-AZ)
  • Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
  • Ben Cardin (D-CA)
  • Chris Coons (D-DE)
  • Dick Durbin (D-IL)
  • Timothy Kaine (D-VA)
  • Bob Menéndez (D-NJ)
  • Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Opposing the resolution are 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats:

  • John Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Ron Johnson (R-WI)
  • Rand Paul (R-KY)
  • Jim Risch (R-ID)
  • Marco Rubio (R-FL)
  • Chris Murphy (D-CT)
  • Tom Udall (D-NM)

Guess what?

The senators who voted in favor of Obama’s war against Syria received an average of 83% more campaign “contributions” from the defense industry than the senators who voted against war.

SURPRISE! . . . not.

pro-war senators1David Kravets reports for WIRED, Sept. 5, 2013, that the senators who had voted to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED’s request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a “limited” strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

The analysis of contributions from employees and PACs of defense industry interests ranges from 2007 through 2012 — based on data tracked by OpenSecrets.org.

pro-war senatorsDick Durbin, John McCain, Timothy Kaine

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “yes” were Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at $127,350; and Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “no” were Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) at $86,500; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at $62,790; and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) at $59,250.

H/t RIA Novosti


Memo to Obama from intel officials calls claim about Syrian chemical attack a FRAUD

VIPS1The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), formed in January 2003, is a group of current and former officials of the United States intelligence agencies that include the CIA, the U.S. State Department‘s Intelligence Bureau (INR),  and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The VIPS’ Steering Group is comprised of:

  • Richard Beske
  • Gene Betit, Arlington, VA
  • Ray Close
  • Patrick G. Eddington, former CIA imagery analyst
  • Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst
  • David MacMichael, former CIA analyst
  • Raymond McGovern, retired CIA officer who had served under 7 U.S. presidents and presented the morning intelligence briefings at the White House to many of those presidents.
  • Greg Theilmann, former State Department intelligence official

On September 6, 2013, twelve members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — all former or retired officials of various U.S. intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, State Department, U.S. Army, and U.S. Marine Corps — wrote a letter to Obama stating that the information they’ve gathered disputes the White House’s claim that Syria’s Assad regime had perpetrated the chemical weapon (sarin nerve gas) attack that allegedly killed hundreds of civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21.

More than that, the VIPS letter states that the claim is a fraud by CIA Director John Brennan.

President Lucifer, his three henchmen, and the warmongers in Congress (most notably John McCain) are using the alleged Assad chemical attack to justify a U.S. “military strike” war on Syria, in the name of “humanitarian intervention” — never mind that in so doing, America precisely will inflict untold human pain and suffering on exactly those same Syrian civilians, as a heart-rending letter from Trappist nuns in Syria points out.

First published on ConsortiumNews.com, here is the VIPS memo in its entirety. For the love of God, please help disseminate this to as many people as you can, via Facebook, Twitter, email, etc.

Thank you,




FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond …  the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

CIA Director John Brennan

CIA Director John Brennan

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

James ClapperJames Clapper

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

[See “Article cited by Limbaugh on Syrian chemical attack being a U.S. false flag,” Sept. 4, 2013. ~Eowyn]

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono? [Who stands to gain? ~Eowyn]

That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation

We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)


The VIPS also wrote a memo on August 30, 2013, to General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution.” Here’s the link to that memo.

John Boehner goes whole hog for Obama’s war on Syria

Boeher cries1

Add House Speaker John Boehner to the list of GOP warmongers led by the pile of human excrement gift-box-with-a-piece-of-shit-smiley-emoticoncalled John McCain:

Here are some choice comments on the video’s YouTube site (language warning!):


The behavior that will not be tolerated is giving Muslim extremist weapons, let them “accidently” gas their own people and blame a regime for the murder just to get America in a war that could escalate to WW3. Way to go you pussy.


Another lying POS! Your behavior will not be tolerated you ASSHOLE. If you want war, here’s your rifle … go ahead, be my guest! We are not the fucken world police! If congress does support yet another illegal war, we better wake the fuck up and take out congress!


Did anyone expect Boehner to stand up to Obama? He loves sucking Obama’s c*ck too much to risk getting his boyfriend mad.


Boehner… traitor… Politicans should be FORCED to fight on the front lines of any war they want.

Swapster .com 

there is no party worthy to take back. we need a new party. This is why I no longer vote. Both parties are corrupt. It is so obvious that 90% of Americans are against any action in Syria, yet these CLOWN PIGS in DC insist on ignoring the will of the people and instead bow down to the corporate masters and the big money war machine. These guys can’t get enough money and blood.


This is the part of the movie where Obama comes out blazzing and saying FUCK!! every other word. America is just like scareface now. You are now only one “Fuck” away from becoming a totally insane, violent fantasy crime syndicate.

joe downincognito 

He sold his soul to satan!

Sherrie QuestioningAll 

Boehner phone number. (202) 225-6205 I left the message he will be going against the will of the people and will be a war criminal for voting yes. I left more information too. Everyone Call and let him know to do the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! Not his Puppet Masters!

Just for the record, I agree with every single one of the above comments.

This is my message to Boeher, McCain, Pelosi, Reid et al.: svomit_100-121


Another Obama War: All signs point to Syria chemical attack being a false flag

UPDATE (Aug. 31, 2013):

Without the support of Britain, the United States’ most loyal ally, President Lucifer is forced to do an about-face.

Today, while lamely insisting that the U. S. will take “military action” against Syria and, at the same time, claiming that he has the Constitutional authority to act alone, Obama nevertheless says he will defer to the will of the American people — as represented by Congress.

Since Congress is in summer “session” vacation, and it may be 10 days or more before the Congress critters return to Washington, D.C., I think we can safely say that an attack on Syria won’t be happening anytime in the near future.

Or even at all.

All of which means that the POS’s reputation in the world is even more tarnished. Other countries and governments now know that when Barack Obama draws a line in the sand (as he did a year ago about the use of chemical weapons in Syria), the “line” he draws might as well be in quick sand.

As my friend Jay Gaskill, Esq. so perfectly puts it:

Obama’s foreign policy: “Bully like a flea, sting like a butterfly.”


To war

Another war is upon us.

Do you want America to start yet another war?

Do you want our already overburdened soldiers, suffering from unprecedented high rates of suicide and PTSD, to be stretched even more?

Do you want our government, already in debt to the (official) tune of $17 TRILLION, spend even more tens and hundreds of millions that we don’t have?

Do you want to see gas prices shoot to stratospheric levels, just as you’re getting ready to drive miles and miles on Labor Day extended weekend?

If you answer “No,” then please read this post and, afterwards, link this to your Facebook page and Twitter account, and email this to your contacts. It is THAT important.

When I began researching into the August 21 chemical attack, I honestly had no preconceived opinion. I scoured the web for information and examined them with a critical eye. This post is necessarily long, though I’ve tried to condense the many source articles I use to concise bullet points.



A year ago, Obama said the United States would not get directly involved in Syria’s civil war unless a clear “red line” is crossed. That “red line” is the Bashar al-Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons against its people.

Two days ago, on August 26, Secretary of State John Kerry said that line has been crossed, pointing the finger at the Assad regime as the perpetrator of a chemical (poison gas) attack near Damascus on August 21 which killed hundreds of men, women, and children — if the images of multiple dead bodies are to be believed. (See pics of fakery here.)

Update! The AP reports that U.S. intelligence officials now admit that intelligence linking Assad to the chemical attack is no “slam dunk”. (Translation: “We don’t have evidence that Assad did it!”)

Top Democrats and Republicans in Congress chimed in, urging prompt action in response to Assad’s use of  chemical weapons. Eliot Engle, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said “We have to move, and we have to move quickly.” Senator Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said “I think we will respond in a surgical way.” Engle and Corker are just the latest banging on the war drums long sounded by Sen. John McCain, who has been urging a U.S. war in Syria for two years now.

Israel, Turkey, Britain, France all blame the Assad regime and are urging “intervention”.

While no one in Congress is (yet) urging U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria, the warmongers are urging deployment of cruise missiles. Already our war ships have moved into the region.

An unnamed senior Obama regime official tells NBC’s Richard Engel “we’re past the point of no return” and that U.S. air strikes against Syria are inevitable, “within days.” I’ve seen the date of August 30, which is tomorrow, Friday.

But U.S. strikes against Syria are sure to precipitate reaction not only from the Assad regime, but also from Syria’s friends — Russia, China, Iran — who are warning Washington not to “meddle.” Invoking an apocalyptic scenario, Russia threatens that U.S. intervention will lead to “catastrophic consequences.” In the meantime, Moscow isn’t taking any chances and is evacuating its citizens from Syria and sending, “over the next few days,” an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean.

More alarming still, the Assyrian International News Agency reports that a Catholic bishop in Syria, Antoine Audo, warns that Western intervention could lead to a world war: “If there is an armed intervention, that would mean, I believe, a world war.”

For his part, Assad rejects the accusations that his government forces used chemical weapons as “preposterous” and “completely politicized.” Claiming government forces were in the targeted area, Assad asks, “How is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located? This is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicized and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.”

Indeed, according to a CBS News report, since June, Assad’s forces have been winning, whereas victories for the Muslim Brotherhood-backed rebels, the Rebel Free Syrian Army, not only had become “increasingly rare,” they were sustaining “some of their heaviest losses” near Damascus.

In other words, it simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for Assad to unleash chemical weapons when he is winning, against the losing rebels. As a Stratfor email puts it:

“The general consensus is Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons against his enemies. The problem is trying to figure out why he would do it. He was not losing the civil war. In fact, he had achieved some limited military success recently. He knew that U.S. President Obama had said the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. Yet Assad did it.

Or did he? Could the rebels have staged the attack in order to draw in an attack on al-Assad? Could the pictures have been faked? Could a third party, hoping to bog the United States down in another war, have done it? [...] We can’t shy away from alternative explanations simply because they seem outlandish and conspiratorial. Nor can we embrace them.”

So let’s take a look at those “alternative explanations,” no matter how “outlandish and conspiratorial” by asking the question that is on so many Americans’ minds:

Was the August 21 chemical attack a false flag event?

As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic public event that is:

  • False: The public are given an untruthful version of the event by the government and the media. The falsity can range from no one actually had been killed or hurt (it was all theater); to some of the alleged victims are real; to all the alleged victims are real but the alleged perpetrator(s) is a fall guy who was set up by the “real” conspirators behind the scenes.
  • Results in a “rallying around the flag” effect: Whatever the true nature of the “false flag” event, the objective is to arouse and manipulate the emotions (fear, anger, outrage, indignation) of the American people so that they’ll “rally around the flag” in an outburst of patriotism, supplying the current White House occupant and his (and his party’s) policies with their support and loyalty.

I propose that we approach the question of whether the August 21 Syrian chemical attack was a false flag by asking these questions:

  1. Who has the motive?
  2. Who has the means?
  3. Who has a prior record (precedent) of instigating chemical attacks?
  4. What evidence do we have that the rebels perpetrated the Aug. 21 chemical attack?
  5. What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military “intervention”?

1. Who has the motive?

As discussed above, Syrian government forces have been winning the civil war since June. It makes no sense for the winning side to suddenly up the stakes by resorting to chemical weapons, especially since Obama had declared the use of the same chemical weapons to be the “red line” that will trigger the United States’ intervention. In other words, by resorting to chemical weapons, Assad has everything to lose and nothing to gain. As Stratfor’s George Friedman puts it:

“Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst.”

In contrast, the jihadist rebels have been losing the civil war. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. Launching a chemical attack and killing their own people but putting the blame on the Syrian government, would bring the condemnation of the world as well as the most powerful military in the world, the United States, against their enemy — the Assad regime.

2. Who has the means?

Both the Syrian regime and the rebels have access to chemical weapons.

According to ABCNews, April 23, 2013: “Videos have surfaced online of Islamist rebel fighters with vast supplies of chemicals, carrying out experiments on animals and saying they will use chemical weapons against the Assad regime.

The Assad regime is believed to have one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world which contains the VX nerve agent and mustard gas, in addition to sarin.”

3. Who undertook previous chemical attacks?

Previous chemical attacks in the Syrian civil war had been undertaken by the jihadist rebels:

  • Sarin attack on March 19, 2013 in Khan al-Asal (near Aleppo): Although Israel, Britain, France and the U.S. blamed Assad, a United Nations investigation found “strong, concrete suspicions” that the rebels were responsible.
  • A UN report in June 2013 says a UN panel has compiled evidence that chemical weapons were not used by Assad but instead by the Muslim Brotherhood rebels.

4. Where’s the evidence? 

A, Whatever evidence we have all point to the jihadist rebels as the perpetrators:

  • Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says the Aug. 21 chemical weapon (“a homemade missile” with “chemical poison gas”) was shot “from the positions” of the rebels and is similar to the March 19 sarin-gas missile used by Syrian rebels. (Source: Voice of Russia)
  • Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich says “there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the [chemical attack] incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack.” (Source: Russia Today)
  • Syrian Arab News Agency claims that the government had intercepted two phone calls of the rebels which show that the rebels are responsible for the chemical attack. The first phone call was between a rebel and “his boss” or financier from Saudi Arabia, in which the rebel boasted that one of his battalion’s achievements was the Aug. 21 attack. The second phone call revealed the cooperation between two rebel groups in bringing two  bottles of sarin gas to Damascus.
  • A video from a Syrian TV news report claims to show chemicals and weapons seized by the Syrian government in the rebel stronghold of Jobar. Note at the :10 mark a label that reads:  “Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalies”.
  • Walid Shoebat’s Shoebat Foundation has several videos uploaded by “Free Syrian” rebels showing them threatening to use chemical weapons, loading a rocket armed with a chemical agent, as well as the voice of a rebel about using sarin gas.
  • The behavior of the Assad regime is not consistent with their being the guilty party:
    • It was Syrian government soldiers who found the chemical agents in rebel tunnels in Jobar, a suburb of Damascus.
    • Assad has allowed — and is allowing — UN experts to investigate sites of chemical weapon attacks. In contrast, the rebels don’t display a similar cooperative willingness.

B. Evidence of the Obama regime training and arming Syrian rebels:

  • According to a December 2011 email leaked by Wikileaks (see above), SOF (Special Operations Forces) teams from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey are already on the ground in Syria “focused on recce (reconnaissance) missions and training opposition forces.” The email was from a member of Stratfor who had spent an afternoon at the Pentagon with the USAF strategic studies group. From the email: “They [USAF] dont believe [U.S.] air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn’t reach that very public stage.”
  • Even worse, on January 29, 2013, the UK’s Daily Mail published an article on leaked emails proving the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action against Syria. A week after the Aug. 21 chemical attack, Patriot Action Network discovered that Daily Mail had scrubbed the article. But you can still read the original article on web archive.

Here’s a screenshot of the article as it was published on January 29th, 2013:

5. What does the Obama regime intend to accomplish with a military intervention?

Reportedly, options being considered by the Obama regime include cruise missile strikes, an air campaign, and cross-border shelling, among others.

The day after the chemical attack, on August 22, 2013, Stars and Stripes, an official Defense Department publication, published an AP report saying US officials are divided on how to respond to the chemical attack incident, with “top military leaders” cautioning against even limited action in Syria. “[Army General Martin E.] Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs chairman, said in a letter this week to a congressman that the US military is clearly capable of taking out Assad’s air force and shifting the balance of the war toward the armed opposition. But such an approach would plunge the US into the war without offering any (end game) strategy.”

In other words, what may begin with air strikes inevitably will lead to the U.S. being stuck in yet another long drawn-out war.

Indeed, I woke up this morning to a reporter on the overnight ABC news saying that U.S. air strikes had never been successful at stopping whatever government from doing anything.

An Aug. 19-23 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9% thought  Obama should act. But Obama and Congress are hell bent on war.

Tell your so-called representatives in D.C. that you don’t want another war!!!!!