Pieces Are Being Placed

As reported by FOX News, filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was sentenced on two weeks ago Tuesday to five years of probation, a $30,000 fine, and eight months in a San Diego “community confinement center” where he will undergo “therapeutic counseling.”  No doubt, the ghost of Saul Alinsky will be acting counselor.

The reason we refer to D'Souza is because like few others, he has a clear understanding of who President Obama really is, what motivates him and what goals he has worked on at implementing during his presidency.  Time has found D'Souza to be most accurate, perhaps most notably the anti-Colonialism stance Obama inherited from his father and champions somewhat clandestinely. 

Why is this important at this juncture in time?  I am not sure you want to know.

Remember when President Obama returned the bust of Churchill, a gift to The White House, to Great Britain?  This action was not accidental or an error in judgement; this action was born out of a deep resentment, part of Obama's detest of the Colonialist policies of the England and France.

Behind that backdrop, Obama has, in reluctance, began bombing targets housing the lethal terrorist group ISIS, or ISIL, in Syria.  Sounds good, as we need to kill these representatives of evil in prompt fashion.

As NewsMax reported, President Barack Obama said Thursday's Senate vote to approve funding to train and equip Syrian rebels shows that Americans are united in fighting the Islamic State (ISIS).  The votes provides funding to train Syrian rebels, who may or may not be ready to take on ISIS.

Glenn Beck proposed the Obama administration is utilizing the ISIS threat to arm rebels whose ultimate goal is to overthrow Assad.  On the surface, toppling Assad, who is not a good guy, may be a reasonable objective, but their real story is real alarming.  Take a few moments to listen to Beck and his thoughts:



After absorbing this information for a few days, coupled with some investigation and study, the premise presented by Beck is deemed most credible. Beck was among the first, if not the only, to describe the goal of a caliphate in the middle east, and that is exactly where we are heading. 

I did not specifically recall the Sykes-Picot agreement. Essentially the old Ottoman Empire, the last time the Arab world had a united Islamic state led by a religious leader as Beck points out, was divided up into provinces or states that were to be under British and French control and influence to control and grow safe shipping lanes.  It was part of the agreement, however, where negotiated promises of the emergence of a kingdom united called Greater Syria failed to materialize, and this has led to Arab factions, enraged at being slighted, attempting seize control over the area to once again establish a single nation of under Islam; a caliphate.

Most of these groups are what we could consider to be terrorist in nature.  Those deemed non-believers who refuse to convert, are not given an opportunity to co-exist, but are labeled infidels and are most often killed.

Under the Obama administration, an objective of toppling dictators in this region opens up the avenues for upstart factions to effort to seize control and reach the goal of establishing the caliphate; a Greater Syria under the control of an Islamic religious leader.  Chaos has been the result thus far, not withstanding all the propaganda stating otherwise.  The events in Egypt are notably worth recalling.

Should a caliphate be established in the region, along the map of the old Ottoman Empire; if those in control operated without opposition this area, if not challenged, the mapping would not include Israel. Keep in mind there is little doubt of the hostility Obama holds toward Israel, and the Colonial powers of Great Britain and France. 

For those living under a tree, please be advised that Obama does not hold Uncle Sam in high regard either, having vowed to transform our nation, a nation he had noted is "based on a a charter of negative liberties, which says what the states can’t do to you, what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

Define that as Obama finding America an oppressor nation, and although the premise is false, he aims to direct her transformation through efforts at level the playing field. 

Rather than misleading rhetoric, action dictates the marketplace, and Obama has had America orchestrate much of this mid east turnover and chaos, and turned a blind eye at a minimum to actions of countries and groups historically viewed as our enemies.

Last year, Obama spoke to the nation detailing how we must strike Syria and Assad as evidence pointed to their utilization of chemical weapons on their own people.  As it turns out, I believe, that was an orchestrated event hoping to win the minds of the American people and giving Obama the green light to take out Assad and open up Syria for the merchants of radical Islam.

Nobody bought it, and the imminent action failed to take place. The media failed to exhibit an ounce of intellectual curiosity as we quietly failed to take what would have been considered a seemingly appropriate action.

ISIS is now running roughshod over Iraq, having seized large tracts of territory, cash and our own abandoned military equipment, and they must be stopped.

Now, it does not seem our military has been specifically tasked with the destruction of ISIS ( is that not what you thought Obama finally engaged our forces to do? ), but rather to assist Syrian rebels who aim the overthrow of Bashar a-Assad. 

As Obama says, Assad must go. No, Mr. President, actually, ISIS must go.

Something is very wrong with this whole situation, and I fear many members of Congress are not up to speed with the historical significance of the Sykes-Picot agreement and I was not either, but thanks to the presentation by Glenn Beck and some research, it seems to all be alarmingly pieced together.

At one point just prior to Obama's regrettable election, we had the head of snake, Iran, in large measure surrounded.  Do you remember playing RISK?  Surrounding your enemy is good.

Now, under Obama's leadership, we are enabling enemies of state, arming terrorist organizations and helping to create the chaos necessary to fuel the flames of insurgency for those seeking freedom to overthrow vicious dictators, all of which escalates the power Iran yields.

You may think overturning these dictators is a worthy endeavor, and in many ways it is.  However, you must consider the ultimate objectives of the not only the fighters on the field, but those who organize their efforts.

As our Commander in Chief, we have the top dog in organization, but just what is he organizing?  It sure looks like a Greater Syria, where a united Islamic state can be once again ruled by a religious leader. In a sense, the Obama administration policies and ISIS have much the same goal, just approached in differing ways.

I do not have it all pieced together, but, although we are not playing RISK, I can recognize pieces are being placed.

Yeah, something is very wrong to be sure, and it is not workplace violence.

Organizational Deception

Is bombing ISIS in Syria "just some part of an organizing the Arab world adventure" asks Glenn Beck. Sure looks like it. If we have placed a stranglehold on their income streams ( oil ) I missed it.  Obama reluctantly engaged in this process, seemingly designed more for toppling Assad in Syria rather than crushing ISIS.

Pay attention to actions, not rhetoric.  The organizational deception underway stretches the mind, and is very troubling to say the least.

Liars Lack Credibility

President Obama; Commander Clueless At Large

"My credibility is not on the line," quipped President Obama today regarding his red line he never spoke of regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Problem is, Obama has no credibility. 

"The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America’s and Congress’s credibility is on the line."

In response to appearing most weak, Obama throws the international community under the bus for attempting to set a level of standards in times of conflict that adhere to common decency and follows by hammering the Congress for being part of such an agreement.

The comments are really an effort to discredit Republicans and the use of force by those countries able to successfully conduct military operations.  Only when the administration find the international community has the "responsibility to protect" would military action seem appropriate.

From the beginning of Obama's administration and his apology tour, there has not been an international relations plan anyone can make sense of.  The Arab Spring was a disaster everyone but he and his staff saw in the making, and the orchestrated events in Lybia has moved the country into lawlessness and ruin and has resulted in Egypt in turmoil.

Furthermore, truth and the adherence to the rule of law have been absent, a critical matter of trust.  One could surmise the administration has been less than forthcoming, but the fact of the matter is those the are charged to report to are left facing distortion, stonewalling, mistruths and deception.

This would include negotiations surrounding the auto bailouts, Fast and Furious, the stimulus, the unemployment rate, the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal and most notably, the events in Benghazi where four patriots, including our Ambassador, were murdered.

The administration is not credible, and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R:SC, made the charge while grilling Secretary of State John Kerry, who is an appalling individual, lacking character and credibility, who although serving in, has exhibited great disdain for our military over the years.


I have no access to any military intelligence and can only speculate on the real story from what I can ascertain from following the events, deciphering what I can from media reports and hearing testimonials.  But, it seems clear chemical weapons were utilized in Syria.

However, in my opinion, there are a myriad of outstanding questions that must be addressed before we risk the lives of our servicemen.   Primarily due to the mind boggling foreign policy of this administration, this situation has really become one were neither side, either the administration of Bashar al-Assad or the rebels made up of factions of Al-Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood,   deserves any support from Uncle Sam.

Interestingly enough, we apparently know the issues in Syria like the palm of our hand but were paralyzed at the time and remain quite puzzled at what transpired in Benghazi.  We actually thought is was because of a video.  I don't buy it, and nor should you.

Going against Assad, as Obama is asking Congress for approval in doing, puts us on the side with the Muslim Brotherhood and factions of Al-Queda, both of whom I consider our enemies.  Problem is, I doubt President Obama considers agrees. As Sen. Ted Cruz, R:TX, said, "we should not be “al-Qaeda’s air force."

The entire operation has come about quickly for some reason, with somewhat of a sense of urgency.  I wonder why, but then again, there is golf, fundraising and world travel going on.

The case is weak, and we are asked by the same hypocrites who railed against George W. Bush, who had a library of info compared to Kerry's briefcase, to seemingly blindly accept their premise and jump on board. 

No such luck with me.  It is noted many seemingly knowledgeable people have, including Jennifer Rubin over at The Washington Post.

We should not tolerate the use of chemical weapons and there may be some additional reasons to be involved, but we have not been informed of what they may be. I got some ideas, coming up in a later post.

Certainly, I am not against military action when necessary, provided we go kick the ass out of our opponent and come home. For us to engage, there must be a strategic plan of action, rather than a rushed effort with no stated goal or end game.

In my view, the administration has presented themselves as liars ( perpetrators apprehended and punished in Benghazi?) and thieves (monetizing of the debt), misrepresenting and distorting facts ( no red line drawn).  They are not to be trusted, and get no quarter from me.

Obama thinks he is loved from the night sky to the ocean floor, but only he and a few remaining Obamabots still think that. The truth of the matter is, that other than attempting to save what limited credibility Obama and the US still clings to on the world stage, there is no strategic US interest or reason to be involving ourselves, and placing at risk the treasure of our servicemen and women, in yet another middle east skirmish, particularly with no strategic plan.