Rand Paul takes on John Kerry "Why are you pushing at act of war?" -

Rand Paul takes on John Kerry
"Why are you pushing at act of war?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ch-r28Bc#t=117
Published on Sep 3, 2013
Rand Paul - John Kerry Tense Exchange at Syria Hearing (FULL)
Rand Paul Accuses Obama Of Reducing Congress' Role In Syria To 'Constitutional Theater'
Sec. Kerry to Sen. Rand Paul(R-KY) " The President is not asking you to go to war, he's not asking you to declare war."
Paul to Kerry: 'You're Making a Joke of Us'
Rand Paul: Make me proud today, Secretary Kerry. Stand up for us and say you're going to obey the Constitution, and if we vote you down, which is unlikely by the way, but if we do, you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn't go forward with a war that your Congress votes against. Can you give me a better answer, Secretary Kerry?
Kerry: I can't give you a different answer than the one I gave you. I don't know what the president's decision is, but I will tell you this. It ought to make you proud because he still has the constitutional authority, and he would be in keeping with the Constitution.
Rand Paul: Well, I disagree with you there. I don't believe he has the constitutional authority. I think Congress has this. Madison was very explicit. When he wrote the Federalist Papers, he wrote that history supposes, or the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the Constitution vested that power in the Congress. It's explicit and runs throughout all of Madison's writings. This power is a Congressional power and is not an Executive power. They didn't say big war, small war. They didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. They said declare war. Ask the people on the ships launching the missiles whether they're involved with war or not. If we do not say the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. You're making us into theater, and so we play constitutional theater for the president. If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress. You're probably going to win. Just got ahead and say it's real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and say, 'Oh well, we had the authority anyway, we're going to go ahead and go to war anyway.'




Top Officials Argue for Use of Force Against Syria
Sec. of Defense Hagel, Sec. of State Kerry and Joint Chiefs Chair Dempsey make the administration's case for the use of force against Syria at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) chairs the debate.

• Category
  
  News & Politics
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License

"Constitutional Theater"
Rand Paul spells it out.

The Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress.

Obama and Kerry say they'll pretty much do whatever they want regardless of what Congress says.

Rand Paul says no.

Kerry says the world will be "safer" after the US bombs Syria. How is that going to work?

Civilians will almost certainly be killed in the process. Syria will become more hostile, not less. Tensions with Russian will become worse, not better. Religious extremists fighting against the government will become more powerful. Israel will be out at risk.

Who is John Kerry and where does he get his insane arguments from? Info about his background here

- See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/t....eAq6UMex.dpuf



They lie lie and tell more lies, all to suit thier own purpose. If they want to go to war so bad well then go yoursleves. Let Kerry, Obama and the crew that wants this war put on their flack jackets and grab their rifle's and go to it...But the American people say no....count them!!!!!

You jerks-offs will try and start a war and no one will come to it!!!!! The one's that need to be held accountable are you Kerry, Obama, and the other war mongers. Maybe you need to take an action and retire....Just consider that....We have been there and done that it bodes nothing good for "We the People" only the war mongers and the ones profiting by it....

Marching to War?!

http://www.conservative-daily.com/wp...3/09/kerry.png Dear Conservative Friend,

Even though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to overwhelmingly back President Obama in his strike against Syria, there are serious questions that remain, including why would we even consider taking money from Arab-nations to pay for the military intervention in Syria??
You didn’t hear about that? If the United States says it just can’t afford a war, no worries, the Arab nations will pay for everything!! Our military men and women will be paid mercenaries!
Think this is a joke? Read on.


"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the cost and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. That offer is on the table," Kerry said as he appeared before a House of Representatives panel. The offer was "quite significant," he added.

So, all we have to do is get involved in a war we have no business in and take out a regime we have no business interfering with, AND IT WILL BE PAID FOR by Arab countries?!
http://www.conservative-daily.com/wp...8358621423.png

Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs committee on the second day of the administration's campaign on Capitol Hill to motivate lawmakers to approve limited military strikes. While anti-war demonstrators held up red-stained hands behind Kerry's head in a soundless disapproval during his testimony.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a three-hour, classified meeting trying to hash out a draft resolution after Republican veteran Senator John McCain appeared to balk at the plan because he felt it did not go far enough!
And where is our Fearless Leader? He’s in Sweden for a European visit before the G20 summit, where he said that HIS credibility wasn’t on the line - the credibility of the international community is on the line!??
Obama also professed the red line wasn’t his either because it had first been clearly drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world. “That wasn’t something I made up,” he said.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee already voted to authorize the use of force on Wednesday, the first in a series of votes as the president’s request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.
The vote marked the first time lawmakers have voted to authorize military action since the October 2002 votes giving to President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.
Now is the time to let your voice be heard on a resounding NO! Fax Congress and tell them NO!
How can the president think he controls Assad’s response to a “strike across the bow”!! That is an ACT OF WAR!
Meanwhile back in Russia, President Vladimir Putin warns the West against taking one-sided action in Syria yet also said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a UN resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.
Does Putin know something we should know about who did what, to whom?
In Putin’s interview with The Associated Press and Russia’s state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has also frozen further shipments.
He then put forward Russia might sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without UN Security Council backing.
In SYRIA, The Al-Baath newspaper called U.S. senators and members of Congress who supported a draft resolution to authorize a Syria military strike “advocates of war and terrorism.”
The paper is of course, a puppet of Assad’s Baath party but at this point, does that matter. They went on to report that military action would generate “relentless resistance, regionally and internationally” in a way that “will not make the Americans themselves feel safe.”
Any military strike will have unforeseen consequences on the world.
If Congress ultimately votes against this attack, you know this is Obama’s next repeated line “Congress let these innocent children die of chemical weapons.”
And what happens if Congress says YES to an attack??
Notify Congress Americans overwhelming agree that, however horrific the civil war is in Syria, it is not our war, and it isn’t in our national security to attack.
U.S. Senator John McCain is backing up the Obama administration saying that not following up on the chemical attack and Assad would be “catastrophic for the credibility of the United States around the world.”
However, noted columnist Pat Buchanan writes: “Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good the simple-minded statements (“Red-line”) of an untutored president who had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimate?”
From an historical perspective, John Solomon, the Editor of the Washington Times, writes: “No matter where one stands on the crises in the Middle East, there's little argument right now on either side of the political aisle that the president's handling of Syria is no way to conduct American foreign policy. It has defied all the rules, conventions and wisdom accrued on the global stage since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Notify Congress that they must vote NO to this Syrian strike!
Brain-washed GOP leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) indicated that he would go along-side with Barack Obama. His comment: “The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability. I’m going to support the president’s call for action and I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”
But here is the bottom line: THIS IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES!
The Left continues using their same talking points: “We are doing this for humanitarian purposes and our national interest!” Really? Then why didn’t you do something when more than 100,000 people were being tortured and killed by Assad?
I tend to agree with black national columnist Thomas Sowell: “Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be? That is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not!
Regardless of what the headlines say, there are “boots on the ground” in Syria where there are “Advisors” who are meeting with the rebel forces against President Assad. RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT!!
How about an international consensus? Isn’t that the “norm” of crisis, for international situations?
According to John Kerry’s testimony on Tuesday, it will take another THREE WEEKS for the United Nations to produce the final report on chemical weapons’ usage in Syria. 3 weeks!
As far as the United Nations’ Security Council, both Russia and China oppose the use of firing missiles inside Syria. Russia wants to wait until they see the United Nations; report.
Many of the friends of the United States want a “wait-and-see” approach to Syria. Only 16% of the people in the United Kingdom want us to go forward in an attack against Syria.
The Daily Record broke news on Syria this week as well: “BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. Export licenses for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as saran, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago. President Bashar Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.”
Let Congress know that they must not thrust our men and women in the military into this senseless act of war!
Leading the charge against this military onslaught is U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He has even once again promised a FILIBUSTER ON SYRIA! In a heated exchange a couple of days ago with Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Paul said that intervention in Syria would be “reckless and immoral.”
I agree. And I think you do also.

Join the Facebook conversation!

We have not even established 100% that the chemical weapons were delivered by President Assad. And the list of skeptics is growing.
Ideally, the White House wants to link the attack directly to Assad; and not some rogue element or rogue commander, acting without Assad’s approval. Obama wants to use military actions to send a “strong signal” to the Assad regime.
Let’s not put our military men and women in harm’s way for another countries civil war! And without a true, definitive exit strategy!
Most importantly, AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THIS MILITARY STRIKE! Over 60% in the most-recent poll do NO want us to attack Syria.
Our floundering “commander-in-chief” continues to use his inexperience to march America closer to war! Please, please fax every Congressman today!
Sincerely,
http://www.conservative-daily.com/wp...tonyadkins.jpg

Conservative-Daily
Tell Your Friends!
Make sure your friends read this too...we need every voice we can get to change the status quo in Washington! Forward this to a friend »

More nervous than a 'long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.'

His lies are so big, even he can't hide them.

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS MAN DOODLING?

VIDEO

KERRY THE ANTI-MILITARY CLOWN

Posted by Joe Wurzelbacher on Sep 4, 2013

Secretary of State Kerry: You have the reputation of being a “flip-flopper,” but I feel that is inaccurate: You’ve been consistently anti-troops, anti-military, anti-American, anti-war and anti-mission your entire adult life. Follow Joe For America on Facebook! KerryUniformJohn Kerry served four months in Vietnam, but it was of sufficient length for a number of people who served alongside him to collectively battle against his run for the presidency, saying he was unfit to hold high office based on that experience. Since then, Kerry has managed the following: Insulted, smeared and defamed his fellow soldiers and veterans of war Applied for his own purple hearts, a la Major Frank Burns – despite never having spent a single day in the hospital for his “injuries.” Amassed one of the most anti-military voting records in Congress Voted for the War in Iraq, but against equipping our fighting forces with the necessary means to win that war Claimed you voted both ways Called a Secret Serviceman whose duty it is to protect Kerry’s life, a “son of a bitch” after they collided on the ski slopes. Voted against funding for the lion’s share of technology and equipment which has made our military the most advanced fighting force in the world – including the Bradley Fighting vehicle, and the Stealth Bomber – weapons giving the U.S. a decisive edge in battle. Befriended the most traitorous American since World War II, protested alongside her and never sufficiently denounced her consorting with our Communist enemies. Sen. John Kerry, with the Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega — a fanatical Marxist-Leninist. Sen. John Kerry, with the Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega — a fanatical Marxist-Leninist. “If you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq…” - John Kerry What a joke it is that you now find yourself as Secretary of State. Examples: John F. Kerry said Tuesday that members of Congress who refused to authorize retaliatory strikes against Syria would be responsible when Assad gasses its citizens again. And if Congress does authorize military force and the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad gasses its citizens anyway… well, you guys are still responsible. So there. Kinda sucks being you. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that he didn’t want to rule out the need for the U.S. to deploy ground troops in Syria, Kerry then backtracked and said if it means winning a vote, they have “no problem” with Congress writing a resolution prohibiting troops. And if there are any questions, Kerry recommended the excuse; “We said no to troops before we said yes to troops – works every time. At the urging of John Kerry, John Boehner emerged from a meeting with President Obama to say he will vote to authorize an attack on Syria. He also saw his shadow, which means six more weeks of tanning. mccain-vip-pokerJohn McCain was photographed passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing on Syria featuring John Kerry. To be fair, Mccain did the same thing during the Scopes Monkey Trial in July of 1925. John Kerry concluded that Congressional lawmakers will have to craft a limited resolution they can support — one that will include far more limits than the president requested, such as arming moderate rebels fighting to overthrow Mr. Assad. That’s an odd person, isn’t it – a “moderate” rebel? “Yes, we wish to overthrow this murderous dictator with a band of rebel forces willing to go up against a large government militia, armed with the latest in military weaponry. But there’s another side to us that just wants to play X-box… We’re the moderate rebels. Must go now, we’re off to our community college class on civics. Then it’s back to the war – for tonight – WE DINE IN HECK!” … You see, they’re moderate and would never.. oh forget it. It is only the abject incompetence, lying and cowardice of Hillary Clinton that you will be judged as a decent Secretary of State.

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/09/kerry-anti-military-clown/#Z5IJK1uSfXIeSrA1.99




Brasscheck TV



This is the "statesman" Obama is getting advice from on Syria.

You MUST watch this and be amazed. Please share.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/t...-in-space.html





John McCain - Lost in Space
Would you go to war
based on this man's advice?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GEtZlR3zp4c#t=57

A great statesman?
John McCain is even worse than you think.

This video collects clips demonstrating how out of touch, flat out wrong, self-contradictory, confused, and generally deceptive John McCain really is. It's hard to believe these clips are as bad as they are, but they're not doctored. This is who he really is.

How on earth does he get away with it?

Why does the media still cover for him and present him as a "statesman" when he barely qualifies as a buffoon?

By the way, McCain and Kerry have partnered on military issues before.

Check this out:


The Last time McCain and Kerry partnered up

- See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/t....Ke60TNRY.dpuf




Clowns everyone of them!!!!

What the hell is Kerry talking about? Fireing Missiles on Syria is a De Facto Act of War according to international law. Kerry's attempts to color this as a limited engagement is lame at best. In 90 days a hell of alot of damge can be done. They will use the heavy handed "Shock & Awe" Doctrine used in Iraq. if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck ,its a duck.

Beat the war drums loud so Obama care and the budget is over looked, smoke and mirrors once again the agenda of this administration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldguy

Beat the war drums loud so Obama care and the budget is over looked, smoke and mirrors once again the agenda of this administration

---

AND illegal immigration is overlooked as well!

Politics:

Kerry claims he backed the Grenada invasion as a senator, but there's a problem or two

http://static.caintvnetwork.com/090a7f3f6acliff1066.jpg

Image Credit: cliff1066 via Flick

rPublished by: Dan Calabrese on
Friday September 6th, 2013



He wasn't a senator at the time. Oh, and here's what he actually said about it. Oops.

One of the things liars tend to do is respond with overwrought indignation when you call them out as liars. And usually you can detect a pattern. Like, say, a guy claims to be a war hero but a bunch of his contemporaries emerge to say they were there and his claims are without merit. Stop the smears, demands the liar. Or, the president of Russia calls him a liar and he sniffs, why I'm a decorated combat veteran!

Just a couple of completely hypothetical examples.

With this in mind, I present to you, America, your Secretary of State - a man who came horrifyingly close to being president of the United States.

John Kerry has always had a little problem with chrononlogy, which would explain his claim that Richard Nixon sent him into Cambodia in December 1968. And now, as the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto points out, Kerry is inventing an alternate 1985 that would make Biff Tannen proud.

Under tough questioning from U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina) concerning Syria, Kerry first made the obligatory reference to his military service, but it didn't stop there for a man who loves to tout his own personal credentials, even if it requires him to cite complete fiction. Taranto quotes the
Boston Globe:

Duncan also challenged Kerry's own professional history, saying Kerry has never "advocated for anything other than caution when involving U.S. forces in past conflicts," and accused the power of the executive branch as being "so intoxicating" that Kerry has abandoned "past caution in favor for pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly."

Kerry immediately disputed the question, telling Duncan that he "volunteered to fight" for his country, "and that wasn't a cautious thing to do when I did it." When Duncan tried to interrupt the secretary, citing time constraints, Kerry cut him off.

"I'm going to finish, Congressman. I am going to finish," said Kerry. "When I was in the United States Senate, I supported military action in any number of occasions, including Grenada, Panama--I can run a list of them. And I am not going to sit here and be told by you that I don't have a sense of what the judgment is with respect to this," he said angrily.

Ah, so Kerry supported the Grenada invasion when he was in the United States Senate, did he? Well, if John Kerry tells you your mother loves you, check it out. The Grenada invasion occurred in 1983. Kerry became a senator in 1985. OK, but maybe he just got confused about the timing of events, but recalls very clearly that he felt in his heart a sincere appreciation for President Reagan's actions.

Except for . . . this:

"The invasion of Grenada represents the Reagan policy of substituting public relations for diplomatic relations . . . no substantial threat to US interests existed and American lives were not endangered . . . The invasion represented a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation. The invasion only served to heighten world tensions and further strain brittle US/Soviet and North/South relations."

That's what he told the Cape Codder at the time, and even the liberal Globe couldn't help but point out Kerry was trying to "rewrite that history."
So at the same time Kerry is still tossing out the phony claim that he supported the Grenada invasion, we find ourselves considering the claim of Vladimir Putin that Kerry flatly lied about the presence of Al Qaeda in Syria. Now of course, this is Vladimir Putin, no friend of ours, no friend of freedom, no nice guy. So you can't help but be skeptical when he says:

"They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?' He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not. Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this. It was unpleasant and surprising for me - we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."

Like I said, hey, it's Vladimir Putin. Bad guy. Can't believe him, right? Then again, check out the response of Kerry spokeswoman Jen Psaki:

"Secretary Kerry is, as you all know, a decorated combat veteran. He's had ... more than words aimed at him."

Huh. Someone says Kerry is a liar. Kerry responds (this time through his spokeswoman), essentially, How dare you! I served in Vietnam!

It's the type of overwrought indignation that usually accompanies Kerry lies.

http://www.caintv.com/i-backed-the-grenada-invasion

Who is John Kerry Part 2


Today Kerry is the prime cheerleader for
an illegal war.

How did this "progressive" Democrat get
to this place?

Let's see...

* He's a Skull and Bones member

* He deliberately threw the 2004
presidential election - and uttered
not one word of complaint when
the election was stolen from him

* He posed as an anti-war protestor
AFTER the Pentagon decided it wanted
out of Vietnam.

And here's his masterpiece:

Pretending to run a drug and money
laundering hearing during Iran Contra
while actually making sure the real dirt
never came out.

John Kerry: Master Spook selling out
the US for fun and profit.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/24453.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

The John Kerry Show
Kerry keeps the world safe
for government US drug running - 1988


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v64IclD_Q0U
Published on Aug 9, 2013
The Kerry Committee report found that "the Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." The US State Department paid over $806,000 to known drug traffickers to carry humanitarian assistance to the Contras.

On May 4, 1989, North was convicted of charges relating to the Iran/Contra controversy, including three felonies. On September 16, 1991, however, North's convictions were overturned on appeal because North's testimony before Congress under immunity may have affected testimony in the trial.

Almost a decade later, the CIA inspector general would release a study confirming the conclusions of the Kerry Committee report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Co...

The illegal drug trade in Panama includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. The 1989 United States invasion of Panama to topple President Manuel Noriega was justified in part by the need to combat drug trafficking. Noriega, the dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989, had a relationship with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the 1950s. More recently, Mexican cartels such as Sinaloa have been active in Panama.

Although the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s until the 1980s. In 1988 the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration indicted him on federal drug charges.

The 1988 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations concluded that "The saga of Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures for the United States. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, Noriega was able to manipulate U.S. policy toward his country, while skillfully accumulating near-absolute power in Panama. It is clear that each U.S. government agency which had a relationship with Noriega turned a blind eye to his corruption and drug dealing, even as he was emerging as a key player on behalf of the Medellín Cartel (a member of which was notorious Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar)." Noriega was allowed to establish "the hemisphere's first 'narcokleptocracy'".

One of the large financial institutions that he was able to use to launder money was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) which was shut down at the end of the Cold War by the FBI. Noriega shared his cell with ex-BCCI executives in the facility that is known as "Club Med".

As a result of the 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States, Manuel Noriega was removed from power, captured, detained as a prisoner of war, and flown to the United States. Noriega was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. Noriega's U.S. prison sentence ended in September 2007;[6] pending the outcome of extradition requests by both Panama and France, for convictions in absentia for murder in 1995 and money laundering in 1999, respectively. France was granted its extradition request in April 2010. He arrived in Paris on April 27, 2010, and after a re-trial as a condition of the extradition, he was found guilty and sentenced to seven years in jail in July 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_...



The art of "limited hang out"
These hearings, chaired by Skull and Bones members John Kerry, appeared to be a great breakthrough at the time.

Just like his appearance as an "anti-war" veteran testifying against the Vietnam War.

Now it's pretty clear Kerry only became an "anti-war" activist AFTER the Pentagon decided they wanted out and were frustrated by the madman in the White House at the time, Richard Nixon.

it's also pretty clear now that far from revealing new information, Kerry was making sure that the truth about government's direct involvement in the drug industry was carefully controlled.

If you have the time to watch this hearing carefully, not that Kerry only "reveals" things that were already known and skirts far from anything that would go to the heart of the problem:

The US uses the illegal drug business as an instrument of political policy. More info about this from an original BrasscheckTV.com produced program: Douglas Valentine on the reality of the drug war

- See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/g....V9Vp0yVQ.dpuf

Rand Paul: Bill Kristol Needs To Travel, Visit A Military Base And Talk To Troops [AUDIO]

video at link below

http://conservative50plus.com/blog/r...e82ae7-3065713

Bill Kristol is correct that Democrat-controlled Senate supports Syria attack, but America does not.

Media Research Center


Charlie Daniels' DECONSTRUCTS Obama's amateur handling of the crisis in Syria.

MUST READ --> http://goo.gl/QGw5zE


https://sphotos-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/h...07718466_n.jpg http://goo.gl/QGw5zE" height="320" width="320">

3 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria

Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg | August 30, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0mMsNaI7Wmc#t=64


As the Obama administration beats the drum for yet another military engagement, here are three reasons we shouldn’t go to war with Syria.
1. It’s not our fight
U.S. foreign policy - especially military actions - should proceed from clear and compelling national interests. But neither the president nor anyone in his administration has clarified what America’s security stake is in Syria’s civil war.
Humanitarian interventions are notoriously ineffective in practice. If the president wants to reduce the violence that’s already claimed over 100,000 lives, lobbing cruise missiles or putting boots on the ground is no way to accomplish that.
2. Chemical weapons shouldn’t be a red line
President Obama has said that chemical weapons are a red line that no country should be allowed to cross. But even assuming such weapons were used by the murderous Assad regime, the case for treating poison gas as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons is hardly clear.
Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a war be a trigger for action?
3. What constitutes victory?
Obama hasn’t just failed to articulate a cause for action, he hasn’t even bothered to explain what might constitute victory in Syria. The inherent risks are compounded massively by regional and global politics involving Iran, Jordan, Russia, Israel, and European countries.
The U.S. doesn’t even have a clear sense of who the Syrian rebels are and what their agenda is.
For god’s sake, if the past dozen years have taught us anything about foreign policy, it’s that military interventions shouldn’t be done in a half-assed fashion, without clear and widely shared goals.
If the Obama administration can’t be bothered to articulate why we should fight, who we’re helping, and how we would know that we succeeded, it’s got no business getting involved in Syria.
About 2 minutes.Produced by Meredith Bragg and written by Nick Gillespie.
Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Related: "8 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria," by Peter Suderman
Read Reason's comphrehensive Syria coverage.


http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/08/3...war-with-syria