Monday, June 24, 2013

Syrian child tied up in chains and forced to watch the murder of her parents by Obama-backed jihadists

For those having trouble keeping track of who the bad guys are, here's a foolproof formula -- which side is Obama on?
Syrian child tied up in chains and forced to watch the murder of her parents by US sponsored rebels
 
According to Syrian Truth’s Facebook page, the above photo is of a toddler living in the Deir ez-Zor Governate in eastern Syria, bordering Iraq. She was tied up by members of the U.S.-supported “Free Syrian Army” — which is dominated by foreign, Sunni jihadis — and made to watch as her mother and father were killed for being Shia. Here is how the Obama administration is using your tax dollars — mockingly in the name of “freedom.” (thanks to Raymond Ibrahim hat tip Jane)
American moslems are trying so hard to ACT like they are somehow different than the rest of the worlds Moslems...and stupid people fall for it like that BORDER suddenly makes Shi'ite and Sunni now like each other...all of a sudden they love Christians and Jews...I don't know why people think American Moslems are somehow different from the countries they CAME HERE FROM....it is the 2cnd Amendment that keeps them in line for now...

UNRAVELING: Whistle-blower comes forward, attests to attorney that Obama’s financial aid state his citizenship Indonesian, aid given to Obama as a foreign student...

AP
AP
A whistle-blower from Higher Education Services Corporation in Albany New York came forward and advised Attorney Orly Taitz that she personally reviewed Barack Obama’s financial aid information, which stated that financial aid was given to Obama as foreign student and as a citizen of Indonesia.
Additionally, Obama failed to submit the Appellee’s brief in Taitz v Obama, Feinstein, Emken. This is an appeal, which was reinstated by the Chief Judge of the Fourth District Court of Appeal Kathleen O’Leary. Appellant Taitz filed her Appellant’s brief.
Appellees failed to file an Appellees’ brief. They were given additional 15 days and they failed again. Attorney Taitz submitted a notice of failure by Appellees to file an Appellee’s brief and provided the court with this additional information, as part of the appeal revolves around the decision by the Superior Court judge Charles Marginis to rule in favor of the Occidental college and deny a motion to compel production of a redacted   college registration for Obama in light of over a 100 pages of records showing Obama to be a citizen of Indonesia using forged and fraudulently obtained IDs. Read more via The Law Offices of Orly Taitz...

Ex-CIA chief to Obama: Strike North Korea

Warns U.S. defenseless against missiles arriving from south pole

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
The Obama administration should “seriously consider” a surgical strike to prevent North Korea from developing long-range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, argued former CIA director James Woolsey.
In a radio interview Sunday night, Woolsey warned the U.S. is currently wide open and virtually defenseless against a missile coming from a southerly direction, and that both Iran and North Korea made advances toward firing missiles in that direction.
Woolsey further warned of the catastrophic effects of a North Korean missile launch or a satellite that could explode a nuclear warhead over the U.S. as part of an electromagnetic pulse attack.
Woolsey was speaking on Aaron Klein’s WABC Radio show. (Listen to his comments by clicking here:)
He stated: “Once you can launch a satellite into orbit, any country would be capable, if it had a nuclear weapon, of detonating the nuclear weapon while on the satellite, while the satellite is in orbit and unfortunately that is a rather easy way to create an electromagnetic pulse.”
And such an EMP attack could “take out a huge share of the United States’ electricity grid,” he said. He pointed out North Korea reportedly already orbited a satellite.
Woolsey recommended the Obama administration follow a policy first enumerated in 2006 by former Secretary of Defense William Perry and now-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter.
Both diplomats urged President Bush to pre-emptively destroy North Korea’s long-range missiles.
The ex-CIA chief explain that since then North Korea not only sent a satellite into space but also reportedly carried out three nuclear detonations, fulfilling the basic requirements for an intercontinental ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S.
He said that due to the latest North Korean advances Perry and Carter’s recommendation of a pre-emptive strike now “ought to be on the agenda for very serious consideration.”
He continued: “I think Perry and Carter were right then, I think they are even more right now … . I think the substance of their recommendation was quite sound and the [Obama] administration ought to be quite worried about it.”
U.S. South defenseless
Woolsey further warned U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning radars and interceptors are currently positioned to take out missile strikes coming to the homeland from the north polar region, while no such systems are focused on missiles arriving from the south.
Asked by Klein whether the U.S. was defenseless against missiles coming from the south, Woolsey replied in the affirmative.
“At least temporarily,” he added. “Some of these systems can be moved and redirected, but generally speaking today our defenses are facing north. Radars and other systems.”
He said there are indications both Iran and North Korea are theoretically prepared for a possible strike from the south.
“Indeed the North Korean and Iranian satellites that have been launched have been launched toward the south and at altitudes that can be quite compatible with the detonation of an EMP system of some kind.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/ex-cia-chief-to-obama-strike-north-korea/#fyCEqkkBKjsurfWe.99

Obama’s Secret CIA Hit Squad Detailed in “The Way of the Knife”

by Joe Wolverton, II, TenthAmendmentCenter.com:

President Barack Obama has converted the CIA into his personal army and granted it unfettered assassination authority.
The story behind the development and deployment of this presidential killing corps is told inThe Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth, the latest book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Mark Mazzetti.
Mazzetti, who writes for the New York Times, describes a role reversal between the army of agents in the CIA and the actual army:
And just as the CIA has come to take on tasks traditionally associated with the military, with spies turned into soldiers, so has the opposite occurred. The American military has been dispersed into the dark spaces of American foreign policy, with commando teams running spying missions that Washington would never have dreamed of approving in the years before 9/11. Prior to the attacks of September 11, the Pentagon did very little human spying, and the CIA was not officially permitted to kill. In the years since, each has done a great deal of both, and a military-intelligence complex has emerged to carry out the new American way of war.
Read More @ TenthAmendmentCenter.com

NATO Hands Over Control to Afghan Forces as U.S. Plans Talks with the Taliban

The Afghanistan endgame looms as Kabul takes over security fully from the coalition of international troops in the country. On the same day, reports emerged detailing plans of talks in Qatar between U.S. officials and the Taliban.
KOY201305200006
Yuri Kozyrev / Noor for TIME
Members of Afghan special forces during a training exercise on the outskirts of Kabul, May 2013.
Updated.
At 18, Habibi is the youngest and loudest of the new female recruits to the Afghan military’s special forces unit. She wears a black baseball cap instead of a head scarf, a pair of permanent wraparound shades, and carries her sub-five-foot frame with a practiced swagger. During her first few months on the job, Habibi has been living and working with American soldiers who have been teaching her first aid, radio communication, and how to search houses. She’s been teaching them how to lose. “We challenge them to shooting competitions,” Habibi said one afternoon in early May, leaning over to shovel some lunch in at a noisy mess hall in Kabul. Did she win? “Of course,” she says.
Afghan security forces are going to need all of Habibi’s bravado and more in the coming months. In a ceremony in Kabul on Tuesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that Afghan forces are officially taking full security responsibilities over from the international coalition, putting domestic military and police in control of the entire country for the first time since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. The transition, which has been underway for two years, has already put the training, resources and dedication of the 350,000-strong Afghan National Army (ANA) to the test as Western troops have been receding into a supporting role ahead of their official withdrawal in 2014. “Challenges lie ahead,” International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) General Joseph Dunford said in a statement. “But today’s announcement recognizes the ability of a sovereign Afghanistan to meet those challenges.”
(PHOTOS: America’s Long Withdrawal from Afghanistan)
Hours before the ceremony, the reality of those words was on stark display as insurgents staged their fourth attack in Kabul in a month of intensifying violence. Three civilians were killed and over twenty wounded as a suicide car bomb, reportedly targeting an Afghan politician, went off near the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in the western part of the capital. Just last week, militants stage the deadliest attack in Kabul since 2011 near the nation’s Supreme Court, killing 17.
Later in the day, the Taliban announced that it is prepared to start the process of peace talks with the Afghan government, a move that was greeted with cautious optimism. U.S. officials told reporters that Washington would hold formal talks with the group in the coming days in Doha, where the Taliban plans to open a political office. A meeting between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s High Peace Council would, theoretically, follow, but whether the much-anticipated peace talks will go through is far from clear. Among other things, the Taliban has repeatedly refused to meet with members of Karzai’s government, and Karzai’s insistence that the talks be Afghan-led is seen by some as unrealistic for a dialogue in which the Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.S. all need to be involved to achieve lasting peace. Still, Washington took it as an encouraging sign that the Taliban says it wants to negotiate a peaceful end to the 12-year war and does not want threats to other countries to come from Afghan soil.
The Afghan National Army (ANA) was already leading security operations in 90% of the country before the security handover today. Though the capital has been under Afghan control since 2008, the broader transition of different parts of the country from ISAF to Afghan control has been underway since 2011. The last districts handed over today include several troubled areas in Kandahar and areas along the Pakistan border that are insurgent strongholds. The some 100,000 Western troops that remain in the country, including 66,000 Americans, will continue to support the ANA and Afghan National Police (ANP) with logistics, equipment, and training, but will no longer be at the ready in lifesaving roles like medical evacuation and air support except in rare cases.
(MORE: Talking with the Taliban)
Col. Jalaluddin Yaftaly, the commander of Habibi’s unit, expects that after 2014, the joint special forces will also be “working independently” of foreign troops. How his men and women and the rest of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will cope with a deteriorating security environment is a matter of much concern. Parts of the country that were safe not long ago — including Bamiyan, a formerly peaceful region that was the first area to go back to Afghan control in 2011 — are once again under threat. Some worry that parts of the south are as good as lost to the Taliban, and attacks are expected to ramp up further ahead of national elections and the exit of international combat troops next year.
NATO leaders insist that the hundreds of the thousands of Afghan security forces they have been training over the past decade are ready for the tough job. “We went to Afghanistan to protect our security by helping Afghans take control of their own security,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a recent speech. “Afghan forces are getting stronger. And they are getting ready for more.” Yaftaly echoes that confidence, and adds that ordinary Afghans are in fact safer since his men and women took over operations in which soldiers drop in the middle of the night and surround the houses of suspected militants. “Afghanistan has had war for 30 years. Every household has a gun,” Yaftaly says. “When foreigners were entering and seeing that, they believed people were the enemies.” Though he says does not know what civilian casualty numbers were like when Western troops were leading the operations, Yaftaly he says he is certain civilian deaths have dropped dramatically since his soldiers took over. “Last year we conducted 800 or 900 operations and not one civilian was killed,” he says.

Habibi and her fellow special forces recruits at a mess hall on a training base outside Kabul. Afghanistan's military employs women to help in night raids against insurgents.
Yuri Kozyrev / NOOR for TIME
Habibi and her fellow special forces recruits at a mess hall on a training base outside Kabul. Afghanistan’s military employs women to help in night raids against insurgents.
What dangers lie ahead for soldiers like Habibi is a different question. There were 1200 ANA fatalities and 2200 ANP fatalities in 2012, compared to 310 U.S. troop deaths, according to the Brookings Institution. Casualties in the Afghan army have been especially high this summer in the run-up to the handover, and desertion has become so common that officials told the New York Times last winter that the ANA was replacing a full third of its ranks every year. Without the backup of NATO medical evacuation teams and air support on most missions, the sticky situations that ANSF will continue to find itself in are going to get a lot stickier.
Habibi may be good with a gun — indeed, her supervising officer said that, much to his surprise, some of the female recruits were better shots than their male counterparts – but will good training and conviction be enough to protect her and tens of thousands of other soldiers if things get steadily worse? In May, at a training camp on the outskirts of Kabul, TIME asked Habibi and her colleagues what provinces their families were from. Habibi observed the process, holding her gun to her chest, and then got a last word in. “The important thing,” she said, “is that we’re all from Afghanistan.” Her bravado and patriotism may not be enough, but it’s a start.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/06/18/as-nato-hands-over-control-afghan-forces-get-ready-for-the-real-test/#ixzz2XAIfnMA4

China’s Fighters, Drone Look Like U.S. Aircraft

by Brendan McGarry on June 20, 2013
Wing Loong
PARIS — China’s models of military planes at the Paris Air Show bear resemblance to U.S. aircraft, drawing attention to the rising concern in the Defense Department that the country is using cyber espionage to obtain sensitive defense technology.
The state-run Aviation Industry Corporation of China had a large exhibit of military and civilian models of aircraft at the show, held outside Paris at the historic Le Bourget airfield.
The display included three fighters and a drone: a single-seat version of the FC-1, a single-engine fighter built for the Pakistani air force and designated JF-17; a dual-seat variant of the FC-1 in development; the dual-seat, twin-engine L-15 trainer; and an unmanned system called Wing Loong.
The fighters looked like the F-16 made by Lockheed Martin Corp. and the drone bore resemblance to the MQ-1 Predator made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., without the inverted tail. The Chinese drone is designed as a low-altitude craft that can fly up to 16,500 feet and loiter for 20 hours.
A spokesman from the Beijing-based corporation was quick to note that the FC-1 is “a lot cheaper than the F-16,” though he declined to provide a figure. The man gave a brief overview of the systems to Military​.com but declined to be named, citing corporation policy.
Notably missing from the exhibit was any display of the J-20, China’s classified stealth-fighter program.
During talks this month at an estate in Rancho Mirage, Calif., President Barack Obama reportedly warned the new Chinese President Xi Jinping that cyber attacks against the U.S. threaten the two countries’ strategic relationship. Xi insisted China is also the victim of computer hacking.
Obama faced pressure to raise the issue after the recent leak of a classified section of a Defense Department report showed that designs for the most advanced U.S. weapons have been compromised by suspected Chinese hackers. The list of weaponry includes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, among others.
The Pentagon in its latest annual assessment of China’s armed forces for the first time blamed China directly for targeting its computer networks. The attacks were focused on extracting information, including sensitive defense technology.
“In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the U.S. government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” it states. “The accesses and skills required for these intrusions are similar to those necessary to conduct computer network attacks.”
That document also concluded that the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, considers the strategy of “information dominance” a critical form of defense against countries that it views as “information dependent,” such as the U.S.
China called the accusations “groundless” and “not in line with the efforts made by both sides to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation,” according to a May 9 article published on the state-run website, “People’s Daily Online.” The country is a “victim itself of cyberattacks,” it states.
A Chinese espionage group since 2006 has stolen hundreds of terabytes of information from at least 141 companies across 20 major industries, including aerospace and defense, according to a February report from Mandiant, a closely held company based in Alexandria, Va., which sells information-security services.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/06/20/chinas-fighters-drone-look-like-u-s-aircraft/#ixzz2XAA0y93Q
Defense.org
That document also concluded that the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, considers the strategy of “information dominance” a critical form of defense against countries that it views as “information dependent,” such as the U.S.
A Chinese espionage group since 2006 has stolen hundreds of terabytes of information from at least 141 companies across 20 major industries, including aerospace and defense, according to a February report from Mandiant, a closely held company based in Alexandria, Va., which sells information-security services.

Communist Chinese Regime Forcing Rural Population Into Cities

Written by 
The communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China has a new centrally planned plot in the works, a controversial scheme that seeks to force hundreds of millions of farmers from rural areas to regime-dominated mega-cities being built across the nation. According to news reports, much of the land is being seized by force as the Chinese Communist Party works fiendishly to pack people into shoddy cookie-cutter buildings and cities sprouting up all over the country.

More than a few analysts, of course, have cited former Chinese dictator Mao Tse Tung’s central planning schemes, which killed tens of millions of innocent people through starvation and even outright murder. While the late communist tyrant was obsessed with forcing “industrialization” on China from the top down, the regime’s newest crop of autocrats is similarly determined to foist what is dubbed “urbanization” on the Chinese.

It appears increasingly clear that the vast rural population will be forced to submit and “urbanize” whether they like it or not — all for their own benefit, of course, the regime and its propagandists insist. The latest development, though, follows decades of centrally planned disasters triggered by Communist Party plans to redesign society.

Among the worst was the murderous “Cultural Revolution,” a program started by mass-murderer Mao designed to centralize and solidify communist control by attacking traditions, vestiges of the market system, and especially dissidents. Another tragedy brought about by the regime's scheming: the so-called “Great Leap Forward,” which was supposed to modernize the country away from its agricultural roots but actually led to the “Great Chinese Famine” and tens of millions dead.  

According to a report in the New York Times, the latest communist plan aims to relocate some 250 million rural people into urban areas over the next 12 years. The U.K. Telegraph, meanwhile, reported separately that around 400 million Chinese from the countryside were in the regime’s crosshairs to be corralled into sprawling new centrally planned cities being erected all across China. Bloomberg Businessweek said about half of China’s rural population of 650 million would be relocated by “nudging, urging, and sometimes forcing farmers and their families to settle in China’s cities.”    

News reports about the effort in establishment publications have largely been focusing on relatively trivial potential problems stemming from the scheme: unemployment, pollution, slums, pensions, and other matters. Most of them contain quotes from people celebrating their new lives in regime-run cities, though a few quote people who were forcibly evicted. However, buried deep within the articles, the truth about what is really going on becomes more apparent.  

For example, about half-way into the recent report by the New York Times, which has long been criticized for sugar-coating or even concealing communist atrocities, readers find out that the plan will essentially be implemented at the barrel of a gun. “Efforts have been made to improve the attractiveness of urban life, but the farmers caught up in the programs typically have no choice but to leave their land,” the paper admits.

Of course, the dictatorship’s “constitution” states that all land in China is owned collectively — in other words, the regime calls the shots and property rights, at least as Americans know them, are not a barrier to the grand scheme. However, as Beijing and its lower-level minions across the country work to kick farmers off the land they farm, unrest is growing, and conflicts between authorities and farmers are becoming increasingly frequent.  

In a 2011 survey cited in various media reports, a U.S.-based organization known as Landesa Rural Development Institute found that almost 45 percent of Chinese villagers said regime functionaries had seized or tried to take their land. “There’s this feeling that we have to modernize, we have to urbanize and this is our national-development strategy,” Landesa China director Gao Yu was quoted as saying. “It’s almost like another Great Leap Forward.”

Amnesty International, meanwhile, reported last year that at least 41 Chinese people had set themselves on fire from 2009 to 2011 to protest the widespread confiscation of land and property. The real numbers are probably much higher, but the dictatorship enforces an Orwellian censorship regime that aims to prevent the world and the people of China from knowing what the communist despots are doing.

“The problem of forced evictions represents the single most significant source of popular discontent in China,” the U.S.-based human rights group warned in its report. Under the new plan, however, the long-simmering outrage is likely to keep growing as the repressive regime gobbles up ever-greater quantities of land while dislocating hundreds of millions of people.

Unsurprisingly, Beijing, its legions of propagandists, and its Western apologists all claim that the “Great Uprooting,” as the New York Times put it, will benefit China and the victims of forced re-location. “Urbanization will usher in a huge amount of consumption and investment demand, increase job opportunities, create wealth for farmers, and bring benefits to the people,” the dictatorship’s new “Premier,” Li Keqiang, announced at a press conference.

Lower-level functionaries for the regime echoed those claims in media interviews. Vice director Li Xiangyang, with the dictatorship’s “Institute of World Economics and Politics,” for example, argued that forcing farmers into cities would force them to consume more. “If half of China’s population starts consuming, growth is inevitable,” he claimed. “Right now they are living in rural areas where they do not consume.”

Another argument advanced by proponents of the radical plot — described by the leftist U.K. Guardian as “the biggest and fastest social movement in human history” that is “turning Chinese society on its head” — is the notion that farming could become more efficient and “sustainable” if small farms were eradicated and replaced by massive operations. The regime’s “premier” made similar claims about the plan, estimated to cost upwards of $5 trillion.

Also part of the agenda is enforcing more so-called “sustainability” and pseudo-environmentalist policies on China — a highly polluted nation thanks in large part to communism, central planning, and a lack of real property rights. While a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21 has so far largely stayed out of the limelight in relation to the Chinese regime’s latest plan, the similarities between the UN’s planetary vision and the “urbanization” plan are remarkable.

To analysts who have followed China, the UN, so-called “sustainability,” and the role of the Western establishment in all of it, however, the communist autocracy’s new plot is hardly surprising. Billionaire banker and self-styled globalist David Rockefeller, for example, wrote fondly of Mao’s mass-murdering agenda as early as the 1970s. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history," he claimed in a 1973 piece for the New York Times.

Other globalist pseudo-environmentalist advocates for the UN, sustainability, and the Chinese regime include people like Maurice Strong, former Earth Summit boss. Twenty years after the original 1992 Earth Summit, a senior Chinese Communist Party member chaired the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Beijing’s latest “Five Year Plan” is also filled with “green” references.

While only outlines of the Chinese “urbanization” plan exist publicly at the moment, analysts say more concrete information on how hundreds of millions of farmers will be herded into cities should emerge after the Communist Party’s “Third Plenum” meeting in the fall. The autocrats have reportedly asked the World Bank to help create “sustainable” proposals to “urbanize” the hundreds of millions of people.

What is almost certain at this point, however, is that, like all centrally planned efforts to restructure an entire society, Chinese people — and especially the peasants — can expect extra doses of misery and brutality. Forced evictions, like forced abortions, already run rampant in China. There is little doubt that the “urbanization” scheme will make it worse.

The dictatorship ruling from Beijing has already developed a reputation as among the most repressive and barbaric in the world — and even throughout human history. Despite Rockefeller’s claims of “success,” the coming decade will undoubtedly see countless additional crimes perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party in its zeal to uproot innocent citizens to suit the grand designs of their rulers. Whether justice will be served, however, depends on how the people of China react.
Photo of Shanghai skyline


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com .

Related articles:
Amid Federal Land Grab in Brazil, Whole Towns Evicted at Gunpoint

Israeli Leaders Blast Chinese Regime's Organ Harvesting, Persecution
Chinese General Who Threatened to Nuke U.S. Leads Delegation to DC
The Most Dangerous Man In The World
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
Hu Gets Red-carpet Treatment at White House
George Soros Touts China as Leader of New World Order
Kissinger Sings Convergence Theme With China's "Red Song" Choir
Obama's China Trade Solution: Give Them Our Hi-Tech
Communist Propaganda Song Performed at White House
Obama and Hu's Sino-U.S. Summit
Chinese Spying in the United States
China Betrayed Into Communism
Communist China Blasts Second Amendment, U.S. Human-rights Record
China's Churches Face Renewed Government Persecution
Communist China Lobbying to Take Over U.S. Oil, Lawmakers Still Concerned
China: The New Investment Savior?
Remembering the Mass-murderer Mao
China Buys Hollywood Influence with Takeover of Top U.S. Cinema Chain
Communist China Uses “Journalists” as Spies, Ex-Xinhua Writer Confirms
Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank
The Chinese Want Gun Control — in America
GMO Giant Monsanto Joins Big Business Coalition for UN Agenda 21
Powerful New Video Explores How Agenda 21 Will Affect You
UN Sustainability Summit Exposed: Big Business, Dictators, and NGOs

4 Senators Introduce Bill To Block Obama’s Funding Of Syrian Jihadists

On Thursday, four United States senators, in a bipartisan fashion, introduced a bill to block military funds to Syria. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-UT), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) put forth legislation that would prohibit Barack Obama from using any funds on activities that would escalate the United States’ involvement in the Syrian war.
Senator Paul said, “The President’s unilateral decision to arm Syrian rebels is incredibly disturbing, considering what little we know about whom we are arming. Engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East with no vote or Congressional oversight compounds the severity of this situation. The American people deserve real deliberation by their elected officials before we send arms to a region rife with extremists who seek to threaten the U.S. and her allies.”
Unlike other bills, this one is fairly simple. Courtesy of Senator Paul’s site, here is the text of the bill:
Title: To restrict funds related to escalating United States military involvement in Syria.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Americans from the Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists Act of 2013“.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ESCALATE UNITED STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA.
(a) In General.-Except as provided under subsection (b), no funds made available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
(b) Exception.-The prohibition under subsection (a) does not apply to funds obligated for non-lethal humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people provided directly by the United States Government, through nongovernmental organizations and contractors, or through foreign governments.
(c) Duration of Prohibition.-The prohibition under subsection (a) shall cease to apply only if a joint resolution approving assistance for military or paramilitary operations in Syria is enacted.
(d) Quarterly Reports.-Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on assistance provided to groups, organizations, movements, and individuals in Syria.
(e) Non-lethal Humanitarian Assistance Defined.-In this Act, the term “non-lethal humanitarian assistance” means humanitarian assistance that is not weapons, ammunition, or other equipment or material that is designed to inflict serious bodily harm or death.
Senator Mike Lee said, “The conflict in Syria has been going on for over two years, yet there are many questions surrounding the composition and goals of Syrian opposition groups and the interests of U.S. national security that need answers.   Any military involvement in Syria, including the arming of Syrian rebels, needs to be authorized through Congress, where concerns can be publicly debated and the American people can have a say.”  
“We have to ensure that we are not arming extremist groups who seek to cause chaos in the region and harm the United States and our allies,” he added.  ”The long-term objectives of increased involvement in Syria are vague, as are the necessary commitments and costs.  The United States cannot be involved in more nation building in the Middle East.”
“I am deeply disturbed by the current situation in Syria and atrocities committed by President Assad’s regime and other militant groups inside Syria,” said Senator Tom Udall. “The ongoing humanitarian tragedy deserves the attention of the international community. But there are too many questions about how the President’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels will be handled, and unfortunately many of those answers are being kept secret.”
“We don’t know where the money is coming from, who the arms are going to, and whether the arms are going to individuals who have the capabilities to maintain a chain of custody of those weapons,” the New Mexico senator continued. “This would not be acceptable in any standard sale of weapons to another government and should definitely not be acceptable for sales to rebel groups we know little about. We need to place a check on the President’s unilateral decision to arm the rebels, while still preserving humanitarian aid and assistance to the Syrian people, and that is why I’m introducing this bill. Bottom line: We should not get involved in another civil war in the Middle East without a clear national security interest.”
Senator Chris Murphy said, “I’m deeply skeptical about plans for military intervention in Syria, given the dangerously fractured state of the opposition, and the very real risk of American weapons and money falling into the hands of the same terrorist organizations we’re already fighting around the world.  We should be extremely wary of allowing the United States to be drawn into a complicated proxy war that could mire our country for years at a potentially incalculable cost to U.S. taxpayers and America’s reputation at home and abroad. Our focus should be on increasing humanitarian assistance to refugee populations and opposition groups instead of injecting more weapons into the conflict.”
“At the very least,” he said, “the American people deserve a full and honest debate on the issue in the full Congress before our nation makes a commitment to becoming more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict.”
They are clearly calling the Obama administration out on arming terrorists by the very title.
At least there is some thinking going on in this matter. I’m thankful that at least some senators are paying attention to who Obama plans to arm in this matter and have been paying attention to such skirmishes that have occurred in the past such as Libya and others.
While I question even the aid of “non-lethal humanitarian assistance,” knowing that a lot of that is not used for that purpose or never gets to those that truly need it, at least this is a step in the right direction of not arming Islamic jihadists in the region.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/4-senators-introduce-bill-to-block-military-funds-to-syrian-jihadists/#ixzz2X9nygdY4