Wednesday, August 28, 2013

‘Earpiece envy’: White House colleagues skeptical about why Valerie Jarrett has detail

  

 

WHO REALLY IS RUNNING OUR NATION AND STARTING WW3‘Earpiece envy’: White House colleagues skeptical about why Valerie Jarrett has detail


Alex Pappas
Political Reporter
Why does President Barack Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett have Secret Service protection?
It turns out that some of her colleagues inside the White House are skeptical that actual, specific threats resulted in Jarrett’s protection.
“While a high-profile White House official — especially an African-American woman, such as Jarrett — could legitimately be considered a more likely target than most, several West Wing officials I spoke to were dubious there had been any special threats against her,” writer Mark Leibovich reported in “This Town,” a new book on Washington.
Added Leibovich of Jarrett’s White House colleagues: “They suspected, rather, that Jarrett asked the president to authorize a detail out of ‘earpiece envy.’”
The Daily Caller reported in 2010 that in a largely unprecedented move, Jarrett and David Axelrod, another senior adviser who has since left the White House, were being driven to work by government drivers and that Jarrett had been made a “protectee” of the Secret Service.
Jarrett has refused to discuss why she has been assigned Secret Service when questioned by reporters.
In April 2012, The Daily Caller filed a Freedom of Information Act request for details from the Department of Homeland Security about the cost of Jarrett’s protection. That request has not yet been fulfilled.
Leibovich reported that Jarrett finds questions about the rationale for her protection “ridiculous and offensive.” The adviser declined to speak about the arrangement with him.
“She has maintained that the decision was not hers, and that being accompanied by agents is more of an intrusion that a perk,” he writes.
The author also disclosed that Axelrod was given protection after the gunman in June 2009 shooting of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was carrying information about the aide.

US Prepares For "Kinetic Strikes" Against Syria

US Prepares For "Kinetic Strikes" Against Syria

Tyler Durden's picture





 
The chart below will likely come as a surprise to most. It shows total nominal US defense spending, more importantly it shows that such spending has been rapidly declining since 2010. And while on the surface it is great news the US is becoming more "pacifist" (apparently mass killings using drones are relatively cost-effective) and the result for the US is even better as it means lower deficits, there is one person who is very unhappy with this outcome - Ben Bernanke.

Why is Ben unhappy? Simple - as a reminder, the only reason Ben is even contemplating tapering has nothing to do with the economy. After all the Fed chairman (and/or his successor) is willing to send the stock market into stratospheric overdrive and would be very happy to add not subtract from the monthly QE $85 billion notional since it means more "wealth effect" and thus brings the US closer to the "Keynesian successful endgame" (that the logic here is completely inverted is well known to all but the most die-hard Keynesian fanboys and is not in the scope of this article).
However, the fact that the gross US debt issuance is declining (if only until the demographic and healthcare crunch hits in 2015 and deficits explode once more) means Bernanke has less primary issuance to monetize. Were Bernanke to maintain his monetization run rate into a lower deficit regime, the Chairman would destabilize the liquidity in the already increasingly illiquid Treasury market in which the Fed now holds over 30% of all 10 Year equivalents and its holdings increase by 0.3% every week. This illiquidity is manifesting itself most directly in the "special" repo rates that have become a norm in the past few months especially in the 10 Year, and which indicate an ongoing shortage of TSY collateral.
Of course, there is a very simple and elegant solution to declining defense spending, one which has been used time and again in US history when the US government needed to provide the Fed with more securities (i.e. deficit) to monetize: war.
According to RT that, or rather its more politically correct equivalent "kinetic strikes", is what may be just over the horizon. RT reports that President Barack Obama is considering using military force in Syria, and the Pentagon has prepared various scenarios for possible United States intervention.  Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Obama administration is deliberating whether or not it should use the brute of the US military in Syria during a Thursday morning Senate hearing. Gen. Dempsey said the administration was considering using “kinetic strikes” in Syria and said "issue is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government,” the Associated Press reported from Washington.
Dempsey, 61, is the highest ranking officer in the US military and has been nominated by Pres. Obama to serve a second term in that role. The Senate Armed Services Committee questioned him Thursday morning as part of the nominating process when Dempsey briefly discussed the situation in Syria.
The pre-story here is well-known to most: in a repeat fabulation of the Iraq "WMD" lie, the US and the entire developed world "found" Syria to have crossed a red-line when it used chemical weapons, despite subsequent reports that it was the Syrian rebels, aka Qatari mercenaries, who were the party responsible for chemical weapon use. No matter though: the public media campaign was hatched, and merely waited for the catalyst.
That catalyst may be imminent, although there is a substantial dose of skepticism this time around:
Pres. Obama said previously that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and likely trigger American intervention. When the White House concluded Assad had relied on chemical warfare, Rhodes said, “both the political and the military opposition . . . is and will be receiving US assistance."

That claim was met with skepticism, though. The Syrian Foreign Ministry called Obama’s claims a “caravan of lies.” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, later presented to the UN evidence supplied to his government that suggested the Syrian opposition fighters used chemical weapons.

With regards to foreign intervention, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said, “Providing arms to either side would not address this current situation.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and his father, former congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) have also cautioned the White House against aiding Syrian rebels.

“You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” by aiding Syrian rebels, Sen. Paul said in May.

On his part, the retired lawmaker from Texas insisted that the administration’s lead up to possible intervention is “identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq War.”

That isn’t to say the GOP is entirely opposed to taking any action. Although directly using the American military — either through boots-on-the-ground or unmanned aircraft — has been rarely discussed in public, Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two long-time leaders within the Republican party, have been relentless with efforts to equip opposition fighters.

"I don't care what it takes," Graham told Foreign Policy’s The Cable earlier this year. "If the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem."

Other US officials have previously said Washington is considering implementing a no-fly zone above Syria, and last month the Pentagon left a fleet of F-16 fighter planes and its Patriot anti-missile system on the border of neighboring Jordan following a routine military drill.
And from the AP:
Amid an increasing clamor among President Bashir Assad's opposition for active U.S. involvement, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said during congressional testimony that he has provided President Barack Obama with options for the use of force. But he declined to detail those choices, saying "it would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use."

The remarks by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman came after Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked him which approach in Syria would carry a greater risk: continued limited action on the part of Washington or more significant actions such as the establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebel forces with the weapons they need to stem the advance Assad's forces.

"Senator, I am in favor of building a moderate opposition and supporting it," Dempsey said. "The question whether to support it with direct kinetic strikes ... is a decision for our elected officials, not for the senior military leader of the nation."

The use of kinetic strikes, a military term that typically refers to missiles and bombs, "is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government," Dempsey said.

"There are a whole range of options that are out there," Navy Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said of the planning for military action in Syria. "We are ready to act if we're called on to act."
All of the above, of course, is smoke and mirrors. The ultimate decision will come not from Congress but from the Fed.
So what may have spooked Bernanke and the sudden reappearance of the Syrian war as a real and credible possibility?
Why, the economy of course. Only not its "improvement" but its recent (and ongoing) deterioration.
 And since the taper is largely priced in, Bernanke is already contemplating how to reengage in the subsequent untapering should all hell break loose following a September tapering announcement prompting the Fed to reengage once more. However, for that to happen, US deficits would need to flow once more, as only then will there be the much needed copious primary issuance of debt that the Fed will need in order to resume monetizing at a fervent pace without impairing the liquidity characteristics of the bond market.
As for the downside? What are some irrelevant Syrian lives in the grand scheme of things, when the status quo's wealth must be preserved at all costs. Costs including the death of thousands of innocent civilian Syrians and/or other nationalities should the conflict just happen to spill outside the Syrian borders.
4.4
Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (20 votes)

As Of This Moment Ben Bernanke Own 30.5% Of The US Treasury Market... And Will Own All By 2018

As Of This Moment Ben Bernanke Own 30.5% Of The US Treasury Market... And Will Own All By 2018

Tyler Durden's picture





 
As is well-known by everyone, the Fed monetizes the US deficit on a daily basis, thanks to the 45 minutes of POMO love each day when it buys Treasuries from Dealers. Of course, the Fed monetizes bonds from across the entire curve (mostly the longer end), which is why it is somewhat complicated to express the amount of risk transfer the Fed takes on every time the S&P posts an uptick as a result of yet another bond purchase by the hedge fund with the largest fixed income portfolio in the history of the world. However, one simple way of expressing just this risk is through the use of ten year equivalents: Ten-year equivalents are the amount of 10-year notes that must be held by the Fed in order to remove the same amount of interest rate risk from the market as its current holdings. What this methodology allows is to represent the Fed's holdings of all marketable securities on a linear continuum, and represent the remainder, or those bonds held by the private sector, on the side.
So what may come as a surprise to most, is that as of this week's H.4.1 update, the amount of ten-year equivalents held by the Fed increased to $1.583 trillion from $1.576 trillion in the prior week, which reduces the amount available to the private sector to $3.637 trillion from $3.668 trillion in the prior week. And also, thanks to maturities, and purchase by the Fed from the secondary market, there were $5.219 trillion ten-year equivalents outstanding, down from $5.244 trillion in the prior week.
What this means simply is that as of this moment, the Fed has, in its possession, a record 30.32% of all outstanding ten year equivalents, or said in plain English: duration-adjusted government bonds. It also means that the amount of bonds left in the hands of the private sector has dropped to a record low 69.68% from 69.95% in the prior week.
America may or may not be becoming increasingly socialist and/or nationalized, but there is no doubt about it: its bond market most certainly is.
Chart of total ten year equivalents, broken down by Private sector and the Fed (courtesy of StoneMcCarthy):

The percentage of the entire US bond market currently owned by the Fed (courtesy of StoneMcCarthy):


Finally, the above means that with every passing week, the Fed's creeping takeover of the US bond market absorbs just under 0.3% of all TSY bonds outstanding: a pace which means the Fed will own 45% of all in 2014, 60% in 2015, 75% in 2016 and 90% or so by the end of 2017 (and ifthe US budget deficit is indeed contracting, these targets will be hit far sooner).
By the end of 2018 there would be no privately held US treasury paper.
Still think QE can go on for ever?
Actually, nevermind.  
P.S. as a bonus, here is a breakdown of the Fed's SOMA holdings by CUSIP




The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria

The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Zero Hedge
August 24, 2013
Earlier today, in “US Refines “Military Options” Ahead Of Syrian Strikes“, we reported on what we thought was now inevitable especially since it was in agreemenet with what we predicted with absolute certainty over a month ago in “US Prepares For “Kinetic Strikes” Against Syria.”  There we said: “The pre-story here is well-known to most: in a repeat fabulation of the Iraq “WMD” lie, the US and the entire developed world “found” Syria to have crossed a red-line when it used chemical weapons, despite subsequent reports that it was the Syrian rebels, aka Qatari mercenaries, who were the party responsible for chemical weapon use. No matter though: the public media campaign was hatched, and merely waited for the catalyst. That catalyst may be imminent…”
Sure enough, a month later the convenient catalyst emerged when this Wedensday, despite the entire world watching Assad (and as Iraq WMD inspector Rolf Ekeus stating the obvious in  “It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country“), we are meant to believe that the Syrian leader launched the biggest nerve gas attack in the history of the Qatari, Al-Qaeda and CIA-funded and organized Syrian rebellion. Two days later, without any actual investigation, the west determined somehow, on its own, that the attack was launched by Assad, not a false flag attack by the rebels even though it was their chemical weapons depot that had been previously uncovered. Visions of Colin Powell lying to the world (with his former aide admitting years later the WMD speech was the “lowest point in my life) should now be emerging right before your eyes.
Moments ago the inevitable denouement arrived when as CBS’ David Martin reports, the US is preparing for a cruise missile launch against Syria, and is further ordering warships closer to Syria to be prepared and ready for when the trigger is pulled.
More from CBS:
CBS News has learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces. We say “initial preparations” because such an attack won’t happen until the president gives the green light. And it was clear during an interview on CNN Friday that he is not there yet.
None of this should come as a surprise to our readers. We explained in detail why not the US state department, not the Pentagon, not even the president or the US MIC is seeking this war. No: the culprit is none other than the Federal Reserve and it banking industry superiors. To wit:
The chart below will likely come as a surprise to most. It shows total nominal US defense spending, more importantly it shows that such spending has been rapidly declining since 2010. And while on the surface it is great news the US is becoming more “pacifist” (apparently mass killings using drones are relatively cost-effective) and the result for the US is even better as it means lower deficits, there is one person who is very unhappy with this outcome - Ben Bernanke.

The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria defense%20spending
Why is Ben unhappy? Simple – as a reminder, the only reason Ben is even contemplating tapering has nothing to do with the economy. After all the Fed chairman (and/or his successor) is willing to send the stock market into stratospheric overdrive and would be very happy to add not subtract from the monthly QE $85 billion notional since it means more “wealth effect” and thus brings the US closer to the “Keynesian successful endgame” (that the logic here is completely inverted is well known to all but the most die-hard Keynesian fanboys and is not in the scope of this article).
However, the fact that the gross US debt issuance is declining (if only until the demographic and healthcare crunch hits in 2015 and deficits explode once more) means Bernanke has less primary issuance to monetize. Were Bernanke to maintain his monetization run rate into a lower deficit regime, the Chairman would destabilize the liquidity in the already increasingly illiquid Treasury market in which the Fed now holds over 30% of all 10 Year equivalents and its holdings increase by 0.3% every week.
This illiquidity is manifesting itself most directly in the “special” repo rates that have become a norm in the past few months especially in the 10 Year, and which indicate an ongoing shortage of TSY collateral.
Of course, there is a very simple and elegant solution to declining defense spending, one which has been used time and again in US history when the US government needed to provide the Fed with more securities (i.e. deficit) to monetize: war.
And speaking of war:
The ultimate decision will come not from Congress but from the Fed.
So what may have spooked Bernanke and the sudden reappearance of the Syrian war as a real and credible possibility?
Why, the economy of course. Only not its “improvement” but its recent (and ongoing) deterioration.
And since the taper is largely priced in, Bernanke is already contemplating how to reengage in the subsequent untapering should all hell break loose following a September tapering announcement prompting the Fed to reengage once more. However, for that to happen, US deficits would need to flow as before, as only then will there be the much needed copious primary issuance of debt that the Fed will need in order to resume monetizing at a fervent pace without impairing the liquidity characteristics of the bond market.
As for the downside? What are some irrelevant Syrian lives in the grand scheme of things, when the status quo’s wealth must be preserved at all costs. Costs including the death of thousands of innocent civilian Syrians and/or other nationalities should the conflict just happen to spill outside the Syrian borders.
So there you have it: in order to make way for the inevitable Untaper, Bernanke has launched in motion a chain of events that will ultimately culminate with a surge in US deficit spending, which will require a surge in Treasury issuance, and thus, a surge in Fed monetization, which also means reserve creation, and as has been made all too clear over the past 5 years, yet another surge in the stock market.
Of course, the use of war as a culmination point to end a depression is nothing new. Just look at thefirst Great Depression.
And just like then, the only cost to perpetuate the myth of the Keynesian and monetarist religion and the pillaged wealth of the 0.01% status quo elite, will be a few hundred thousand innocent men, women and children. Or, as they are known in the Beltway, collateral damage.
That is, unless, Putin decides to retaliate. Then history will truly rhyme, when just as the first great US depression was followed promptly by a world war, so the second great US depression will have an identical outcome.
* * *
Finally, for those curious, this is the current layout of US naval assets around the world courtesy ofStratfor.
The Pentagon Is Preparing A Cruise Missile Attack Against Syria Naval%20update 0

Paulding County Board of Education Throws Out The Fourth Amendment

Paulding County Board of Education Throws Out The Fourth Amendment

AMENDMENT IV TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Illegal Search
I am not exactly sure what the government finds so confusing about the Fourth Amendment. It’s very straightforward and specifically states that law enforcement must have “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” How could the Founding Fathers have been any clearer than that?
As everyone discovered recently, the NSA has been spying on Americans without “probable cause”. I see it all over social media websites on a daily basis and folks are extremely upset…and for good reason. But what about our local and state governments? Are they conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures”? YES!
Last week the Paulding County Board of Education announced that they are going to install a “Visitor Identification System” in all 34 schools in the county. Now before I go too much farther I want to clarify that I support background checks for faculty, staff and volunteers in our schools. I support common sense approaches to keeping children in our public schools safe. This new system however is ripe for abuse.
The electronic system will give school administrators the capability to complete instant background checks on anyone entering the schools. I understand that it is supposed to be for those volunteering and so forth, but there are no safeguards in place to protect parents from having a background check run on them when they show up for parent/teacher conferences. What if a parent just wants to have lunch with their First grader? Should they be subjected to a background check without “probable cause”?
If anything should show up in the background check, the person(s) will be required to “talk to an administrator” before being granted access to their child or child’s teachers, and even then…it is up to the discretion of the school administrator. This means that if you have been charged with “jay walking” and it shows up on the background check, you could be denied your God given right to confer with the teachers, eat lunch with your child(ren), or even attend a school play. You’ve done nothing wrong other than wanting to be an active participant in your child’s education and the Paulding County School Board thinks that is enough “probable cause” to run a background check on you.
It makes no sense to me that Georgia won’t allow teachers to complete extensive training and carry firearms to protect children in our schools, but they’ll make sure that every parent and grandparent has a background check run on them. We do need to protect our children in our schools, but not at the expense of giving up our Fourth Amendment right that protects us against “unreasonable search and seizure”.
The seven members of the board, the superintendent and the board’s attorney have gone too far with this decision. There were no public hearings. Parents were not made aware that they were even considering such a thing. They just did it because they’ve decided they know what’s best whether we agree or not. These eight members are exactly what is wrong with government today. They let their authority go to their heads and think they have the right to dictate whatever they want in our local schools without any input from the parents and community. Shame on these Republicans, these “so-called conservatives”, for being part of the problem instead of being part of the solution!
Here is a list of the board members and the attorney (complete with email addresses and phone numbers) taken directly from the school board’s website. Let’s make sure they know what we think of their decision to violate the privacy of parents and grandparents in Paulding County, Georgia!
Joe Watson, Chair                 
At Large
joesjr@bellsouth.net
770-445-7844 
Kim Curl, Vice Chair
District 6
kimcurlrx@bellsouth.net
770-445-2600 

Nicholas Chester
District 2
nick@chesterlegal.net
404-964-1789 

Kim Cobb
District 3
kimberlycobb@bellsouth.net
770-597-8211 

Theresa Lyons
District 1
phillipssalon@aol.com
770-557-4466 

Richard Manous
District 4
richardmanous@gmail.com
770-490-3109 

Sammy McClure
District 5
smymclr@bellsouth.net
770-445-1663 

Cliff Cole, Superintendent
Superintendent
superintendent@paulding.k12.ga.us
770-443-8000 

Tom Cable, Board Attorney
Board Attorney
tcable@trc-lawfirm.com
770-445-4439

OBAMA LOVERS ARE SO DUMB

THEY BELIEVE EVERY LIE HE TELLS THEM
THEY BELIEVE HIS LIES ABOUT WHATS GOING ON IN SYRIA
THEY THINK HE IS GOING TO STOP THE WAR
WAKE UP RETARDS HE MADE IT
IT SET THIS UP
WITH YOUR DUMB ASS HELPING HIM DO SO
I JUDGE ALL OF YOU WHO VOTED OR HELPED HIM WITH HIS WAR CRIMES
YOU ARE ALL NOW DAMED
WORD OF THE LORD
YOU FELL FOR A EVIL UNJUST RULER
AND NOW GOD GAVE YOU OVER TO TAKE
YOU WILL HAVE TO STAND BE FORE DOG
FOR HIS CRIMES
ENJOY

Obama risks everything to prove a point in Syria

Obama risks everything to prove a point in Syria


President Obama risks policy objectives and national security to reprimand Assad for the alleged use of chemical weapons. Photo: The Heritage Foundation
WASHINGTON, August 28, 2013 – After over a month of negotiating terms, UN investigators finally went into Syria to investigate the use of chemical weapons. That same team was forced to turn back after the first vehicle in the convoy was riddled by sniper fire.
On Monday, U.S. Secreatry of State John Kerry stated that it was ‘undeniable’ that Syrian President Assad had used chemical weapons against his people, and reprimanded Assad for the ‘cynical attempt to cover up’ the ‘cowardly crime.’ Kerry went on to say that President Obama is in touch with allied leaders to discuss a response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.
White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted a response to the attacks “will come.” All signs point toward coordinated missile strikes against government targets inside Syria, although Carney also said the President is still weighing options. Indeed, in the same press conference, Carney laid out the legal groundwork justifying an attack.
Carney stated “it is absolutely in the national security interest of the United States and in the international community that the use of chemical weapons on the scale that we saw on August 21st cannot be ignored.  It must be responded to. Because to allow it to happen without a response would invite further use of chemical weapons and have the international standard dissolve”
Both Department of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary Kerry foreshadowed that an attack will follow by consulting with NATO and other partners while also sending missiles attached with cruise ships into the Eastern Mediterranean. ”We’re ready to go” said Sec. Hagel, “The options are there, the United States Department of Defense is ready to carry out those options.”
Although the Department of Defense, the United States and its Allies may be ‘ready to go’ to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons, the real questions are “what’s next? and “at what cost?”


Syria has been locked in civil war since March 2011, when Assad responded with military force to Arab Spring protesters in the country. Over one hundred thousand have died as a result, with millions fleeing to neighboring countries for safety.
The White House is adamant that any strikes on Syria is “not about a regime change,” and “that cruise missile strikes are only to send the message that the usage of chemical weapons were “unacceptable.” The only way to show that it is “unacceptable” is to strike the Syrian Army and their positions.
How can the United States justify strikes against the Assad forces and not call it in support of the opposition forces? Whatever strikes are conducted will help the opposition and will be for their benefit.
Assad himself addressed this in an interview where he responded to reports of potential US involvement.  He said, “Terrorism isn’t a bargaining chip to pull out and use anytime one want….You can’t be for the terrorism in Syria and against it in Mali.”
However, the Administration, backed into a corner after Obama’s 2012 speech at the National Defense University, is planning for a military strike.
The United States has publically declared that it supports funding the Syrian rebels against the forces of Assad. That decision, which came months ago, has been looked at very critically by members of Congress, particularly those on the Senate Select Intelligent Committee. “It’s not clear to me that the government has a workable policy” stated Sen. Collins (R-ME). Since July at least 50 Million worth of aid has been withheld because no non-Al Qaeda linked militias could be found.
In mid July, Al Qaeda planned to declare an Islamic State in Syria after securing the northern border with Turkey, an area in contestion with the Syrian Kurds. “The plan will continue with a serues if assasinations targering FSA members”
Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda linked terror group, is the strongest faction on the battlefield for the opposition and stands to benefit the most from US missile strikes on Assad. Depending on where the US and it’s allies decide to strike via missile, Al-Nursa may be able to consolidate it’s holdings in the north and improve it’s footing against Assad and the FSA in the south, where most of the fighting still rages.
Getting involeved in the Syrian Civil war threatens to tip the balance of power toward the terrorists. Unless the Obama administration gets into the business of regime change, missile strikes against Syria undermine the US security and policy in the Middle East and across the globe.
In the Middle East, Israel will bear the brunt of any US intervention in Syria. The releaseof 26 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture of good will before negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians will be completely forgotten. It also undermines the President’s objective of solving the decades old Palestinain-Israeli conflict.
The Palestian-Israeli conflict aside, missile strikes in Syria will send a message to Assad that the use of chemical weapons are “unacceptable” while putting Israel in jeopardy.
Gaurentees have been givern by Iran and Syria that, in the case of a US attack on Syria, Israel will be the target of any retalliaiton. Hossein Sheikholeslam stated that, in event of a US strike in Syria, “the first victim…would be the Zionist regieme, because the Syrian military…can launch a major offensive on Israel and “flatten the place that is tied to the US national security.”
Syria issued a similar warning: “we have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responfing” said Khalaf Muftah. He continued “if the US or Israel make a mistake of taking advantage of the chemical issue…the region will go up in flames…that will affect security not only in the region but across the world.”
Others in the international community, particurally Russia, warned the US of responding militarily. Russia, who already has a fragile restanding with the US after granting Snowden asylum for a year, is urging the US, the UK and other countries to work withing the parameters of the UN Security council or the region will face “catastrophic consequences.”
The risks of sending a “message” to the Assad regieme could come at the cost of multiple policy objectives, the security of the United State’s closest ally in the region and could lead to terrorists rasing their flag over Damascus and perhaps even Jerusalem.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/simply-world/2013/aug/27/flash-point-obama-risks-everything-prove-point/#ixzz2dIW8pzc0
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

I WANT YOU TO KNOW

MR ISLAMIC TERRORIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE
HACKING ME DONT WORK I MADE COPYS
OF ALL MY FILES
PLUS I SEND OUT ALL MY FILES TO MANY OTHERS
WHO ASKED FOR THEM
I SEND THEM FROM MY COMPUTER TO THERES
HOW CAN YOU STOP ME NOW
ME I ALL READY TAKE IN THIS COMPUTER BACK TO FACTOUY
MAY BE NEXT TIME GET BETTER HACKERS TO WORK FOR YOU
NO WONDER WHY YOU WON
LETS SEE
THEY ARE RETARDS JUST LIKE YOU
YOU CANT STOP GODS WORK
YOU ARE NOW JUDGED
GOD WILL PROTECT ME AND YOU ARE NOW DAMED
MAY BE GET SATAN TO HELP YOU
BETTER GO LEARN HOW TO READ
JESUS WINS
AND YOUR SLAMIC ASS GOES TO HELL

Targeting from the Top of the IRS

Targeting from the Top of the IRS
High-ranking IRS lawyers, possibly including an Obama appointee, delayed tea-party applications.


Text  
Comments
309
Eliana Johnson
According to Hull, a recently retired lawyer with the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit who was providing guidance to the Cincinnati agent processing tea-party cases, Kindell told him the chief counsel’s office would need to review the applications. That, he said, was unprecedented. It also caused lengthy delays in the processing of tea-party applications during the 2010 election season. The applications elevated to Washington, D.C. were “test” applications whose treatment was to provide guidance for the Cincinnati agents processing the bulk of the tea-party cases; lacking a determination on their status, Cincinnati was unable to process any other tea-party applications while agents there waited for word from Washington.
Though he was instructed to make determinations on the applications, Hull explained, “I couldn’t do it because I had no idea which way we were going.” Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati agent charged with processing tea-party applications, told investigators, “I never got any feedback from [Hull] at all” during that period. The head of the Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, said that for nearly a year, between October 2010 and September 2011, tea-party applications languished while agents waited for guidance from top lawyers in Washington.
Advertisement
Hull’s superiors, Michael Seto and Ronald Shoemaker, confirmed his account. Seto, the manager of the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit, told investigators that applications were sent to the chief counsel’s office after Lerner “sent me an e-mail saying that . . . these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to go [through her staff] and the chief counsel’s office.” If Seto’s testimony is to be believed, Lerner appears at best to have withheld information from, and at worst to have misled, Congress about her knowledge of the scrutiny to which tea-party applications were being subjected. When the Oversight Committee in March 2012 expressed concern that the organizations were the subject of “heightened scrutiny,” Lerner said only that some applications required “further development” and, in cases with “no established public precedent,” agents sought guidance from lawyers in the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit. She did not tell the committee that her senior adviser and lawyers in the chief counsel’s office had worked to craft guidelines for reviewing the applications about which the committee had inquired.Though Hull began processing tea-party applications in April 2010, it was not until August 2011 that the chief counsel’s office held a meeting with Hull and Kindell about them. Because the applications had sat dormant for so long, lawyers from the chief counsel’s office indicated they needed updated information from the tea-party groups before they could make a determination. In particular, they sought information about the groups’ political activity “right before the [2010] election period,” according to Hull’s supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker. Shockingly, Shoemaker told investigators that to his knowledge, in the three years since one of the tea-party applications elevated to Washington, D.C., was filed, Kindell and the chief counsel’s office have yet to make a determination on it. “That’s a very long time period,” he said.
Four Republican congressmen disclosed the explosive testimony on Wednesday in a letter to the IRS’s acting administrator, Danny Werfel, who was appointed by President Obama in the wake of the targeting scandal. The disclosures amount to a counterpunch to a 36-page memo from Democratic committee staff released Monday accusing the GOP of engaging in a “sustained and coordinated campaign” to politicize the investigation. Democrats denounced Republicans for alleging that the targeting was politically motivated, calling the allegations “unsubstantiated” and declaring there was “no political motivation or White House involvement in this process.”
Despite the partisan grudge match taking place beneath the surface, we continue, slowly, to get closer to the truth.
— Eliana Johnson is media editor of National Review Online.