Where did Assad get the Chemical Weapons?

Once again, it is demonstrated that hollow diplomacy with no threat of anything behind it is utterly useless and all for show. And also monumentally naïve.

from Glenn Beck:

Obama got rid of all Syria’s chemical weapons, right? Nope.

More than 60 are dead and over 1,000 wounded in yet ANOTHER chemical weapons attack inside Syria.

It’s been exactly one year, to the week, since President Trump retaliated with 59 cruise missiles after the last chemical attack inside Syria. The images of men, women and children lying dead or foaming at the mouth, that reportedly prompted the President to strike last year, were just as gruesome and horrifying over the weekend. read more

Will We Again be Trapped in a Middle East Triangle of Hate

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

President Trump sent 59 Cruise Missiles into Syria. Unlike Bill Clinton’s feeble attempt at a Cruise Missile strike which hit an empty aspirin factory in Khartoum Sudan, the Trump strike hit the mark.

The missile attack was retaliation for a chemical attack launched by Assad on the Syrian people. As the Assad air strike originated from Shayrat Air Base in Assad controlled Homs Province, this was the logical target for the Trump Cruise Missile attack.

This naturally led to a worldwide mental melt down and conjectures that this is the first official volley of World War III. And who knows – it may be. But I wouldn’t be too quick to jump to that conclusion.

There are some real bad actors in this conflict and I’m not sure which is worse – Bashar al-Assad or Vladimir Putin. On the surface Assad would seem to be the personification of evil, and he indeed is, but we know he won’t lift a finger without first checking with the Godfather, Putin. Personally, I think this was Putin’s doing.

For the last eight years, old Vlad has basically had the run of the globe, to go anywhere and do anything he wishes without fear of reprisal from Commander Lead-from-Behind, Obama. read more

What’s Next For ISIS – Chemical Attacks?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So, Mr. President – ISIS is contained and on the run, are they? Well, I agree with half – the on-the-run part. They are on the run – running all over the globe.

First though – remember this?

A report in the Wall Street Journal cited a German Defense Ministry official who said a mustard gas attack which took place on August 13 on roughly 60 Kurdish fighters in an area 40 miles southwest of Irbil, the capital of Iraq’s ethnic Kurd region.

Another attack occurred in August, where ISIS fired an estimated 59 shells and left as many as 25 people in the northern Syrian village of Marea contaminated by what has since been confirmed to have been mustard gas, a chemical weapon banned under the 1925 Geneva protocol.

Peshmerga fighters in northern Iraq have reported at least five attacks on their positions in northern Iraq in August and September with mortar shells or Katyusha rockets filled with sulphur mustard. read more

Warmonger Maureen Dowd

by: the Common Constitutionalist


On Monday the Washington sage Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in, where else, the New York Times entitled, “Shadow of a Doubt“. It was regarding the potential strike on Syria and how, in her opinion, things in Washington seem to be completely upside down.


She expressed it as a “bewildering time here”. She did make a couple of good points although mostly and typically it was trashing all Republicans and those on the right.


She described Nancy Pelosi as “the hawk urging military action”. She does have a good point. When was the last time Pelosi urged action against anyone other than conservatives and the Tea Party?


She described the Republicans as “squeamish about launching an attack” and “top generals going pacifist”. Although she makes no distinction, I will. Republicans are squeamish about virtually everything. They’re afraid of their shadows or at least the shadows of Democrats (and illegal aliens). Conservatives on the other hand are not squeamish. They/we just require the facts before taking action, the real facts.


Dowd characterized former ambassador John Bolton as a “dove who doesn’t think we should take sides” who wishes for more intelligence.


I always knew John Bolton was a smart man. We shouldn’t take sides in a civil war that we have no interest in nor threat from. And as far as intelligence goes; there’s been plenty showing that Assad did not initiate the chemical attack. That it was in fact the “rebels” (terrorists) that released the chemicals. Possibly what they call “kitchen sarin” gas. I wrote about this just yesterday. Feel free to review the article.



Of course Maureen makes no mention of the fact that the terrorists may be setting up the dictator Assad. That’s assuming she’s even heard the contradictory facts. After all, most of these elitist liberal columnists live and work in a bubble, speak to and read only those of like mind. How would she know?


She explained, “many around the president are making the case that if he doesn’t stand firm on his line in the sand… he’ll look weak and America will lose face and embolden its foes.”


Well Maureen, it’s a bit late for that. His foes, along with the rest of us, already see him as weak due to the fact that he is. Terrorists, regardless of affiliation know full well how to “play” the West to achieve their ends. Whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or a subsidiary group, they understand how to move liberal Westerners to action.


She then goes on a typical tirade comparing Bush and Iraq to Syria. The whole “Bush lied and people died” nonsense. Years later and Bush derangement syndrome still lives.


She described how John Kerry and Chuck Hagel as senators both voted to invade Iraq and then came to regret it. She neglected to remind us that many liberals originally rejected the notion of Iraq invasion. Yet when public opinion turned against them they didn’t want to appear weak so they asked for a do over and then voted for it. Way to stick to your guns!


She explained how Democrat hack Robert Menendez of New Jersey “opposed the Iraq invasion but supports a Syrian smackdown”. Funny how that works. It just goes to show that everything is political with these people.


Dowd quoted Menendez asking Lurch (John Kerry) if the administration would accept a “prohibition for having boots on the ground”. It seemed a rather obvious attempt at coaching. Lurch explained that “it would not be preferable” but could not rule it out.


She reported that Kerry said if WMD “fell into the hands of Al Nusra or someone else” ground troops might have to be deployed.


Well, from the evidence coming in, it appears they already have some form of chemical weapons.


Dowd closes in typical liberal fashion stating, “It’s up to president Obama to show Americans that he knows what he’s doing, unlike his predecessor”.


As most are well aware, I am no fan of George W. Bush but it’s been painfully obvious for years that Obama, his advisers and cabinet are utterly clueless. We cannot afford a buffoon like him leading us into armed conflict, although regardless of the outcome it will be reported by Dowd as a smashing success for Old Blood and Guts Barack.

Obama: The Muslims Best Friend

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Yesterday The Blaze reported:


“Al Jazeera’s blog posted a story Monday featuring tweets from the Director of Research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar, who reported that an Egyptian newspaper’s front page story claimed President Barack Obama is a member of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.”


I for one believe it. Why? Because Hillary Clinton said so. “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” Clinton said. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock…”


The report continued:


“And if that weren’t enough, the newspaper also claims that President Obama’s half-brother Malik is allegedly an Al Qaeda activist.  It further alleges that the son of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shater had threatened to expose a document revealing the secret membership.”


Experts say that the Egyptian populace is just acting out their frustration at the impression that the Obama administration is pro-Muslim Brotherhood.


Frustration or not, in my opinion he is indeed pro-Brotherhood. That appears rather obvious. Whether he is a member or not is immaterial. I strongly support many conservative groups efforts but I am not a member of them all. What’s the diff? (a little hipster lingo).


Is this the reason Obama is so fired up about attacking Syria and deposing Assad? As many have stated, myself included; Assad is a bad dude. So was Mubarak in Egypt and Gadhafi in Libya. But the region was at least relatively stable under these evil dictators. That was the evil we knew.


We now see a far worse and much more unpredictable evil.


Yet in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, McCain, Graham and a host of others insist we must attack Syria, for Assad clearly used chemical weapons, thus crossing the “red line”.


Yet Syrian “rebels” (al-Qaeda) admitted to an AP reporter that they, not Assad were responsible for the most recent release of chemical weapons. They also admitted blaming it on Assad. Have you heard anyone in the administration echo these findings, or even say they will look into it? Of course not. It doesn’t fit their template. They’ve boxed themselves into a corner with all their “tough talk”. Rather than take a step back with the release of this information, it’s full speed ahead. Playing right into the hands of the radical Islamic groups that seek to fill the void in Syria as they are attempting to do in so many other Middle Eastern countries.


There are increasing numbers of intelligence reports suggesting this. Among these is a claim by Saleh Muslim, head of an opposition party in Syria and no friend of Assad. He believes the chemical attacked was staged. It’s aim was to frame Assad and provoke and international response.


Will we ever learn? This whole mess sounds like a Serb/Bosnian redo. Remember the “ethnic cleansing” of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the ‘90’s? The Serbs were apparently wiping out the poor Bosnian Muslims. There was international outrage, which convinced president Clinton and a host of other dupes to “save the Muslims” from certain annihilation by waging war against the Serbs. That was lie as is the Syria situation.


It was the exact opposite. It was the Muslims who were cleansing Bosnia of the non-Muslim Serbs. Alija Izetbegovic, a leader of the Bosnian Muslims, perpetrated this lie.


Like all radical Islamists, he preached the creed of “Islamic Order”. He wrote: “…the Islamic Order, which is to say the union of religion and politics…has…consequences of a primordial practical importance, of which the first is the impossibility of confusing the Islamic Order with the non-Islamic systems. It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between ‘the Islamic Religion’ and non-Islamic social and political institutionsthe Islamic movement may, or rather should, begin by seizing power as soon as it possesses a good measure of moral and numerical strength, allowing it not only to overthrow the non-Islamic power, but also to establish the new Islamic power.”


Once again our leaders are being played for the fools they are, although I don’t know if Obama is a fool, a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer or all of the above. I do think we’re going to war…again.

The United States – Caliphate Enabler

by: the Common Constitutionalist


“We have to do something!” regarding Syria. That’s the clarion call of both the right and left. It’s actually the call of the progressives for I hear few if any constitutional conservatives calling for action.


It’s like saying we have to do something to put out a wildfire and then throwing gasoline on it. That’s doing something, is it not?


Yet virtually every politician and pundit I see or hear insists we have to help. We can’t just stand by and do nothing. Assad has clearly crossed the “red line” with chemical weapon attacks and must be dealt with.


However, I personally have seen or heard no evidence that Assad is the one ordering the chemical attacks. Everyone is just assuming it must be his regime. It most likely is but if the Al Qaeda “rebels” had them, they would surely use them and blame Assad knowing the West would fall right in line. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that Al Qaeda were the ones firing on the UN inspectors.


As an aside: I wonder where Assad got his WMDs? If you recall, during the run-up to the Iraq war, there were reports of Russian convoys leaving Iraq headed for Syria/Lebanon. Reports were that the trucks were loaded with WMDs and were eventually hidden in the Bakaa Valley, Lebanon that borders Syria. Could these be the weapons that Assad used? Just something to ponder.


Meanwhile, many in our government and the media are beating the drums of war – or at least a hefty American response, for progressives believe we are indeed the world’s police force.


Just as they think we can continue to spend money we don’t have domestically, they give no thought to involving us in every international conflict.


The American people aren’t as keen to involve the U.S. as say John McCain or Lindsey Graham. According to a Reuters poll, 60% of Americans polled want nothing to do with the attack on Syria, or any involvement whatsoever. 9% were in favor. I’m no fan of Reuters but I tend to believe this.


One poll respondent, a former military officer said: “the United States has become too much of the world’s policemen and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours.”


Monday afternoon Sean Hannity weighed in on the subject. He said it would be like sitting back and watching thugs mug an old lady. He asked, “Would you just do nothing?”


I gotta tell ya. Hannity has all but lost me. It’s bad enough that he gives the likes of Karl Rove a platform on his show, but equating a mugging to this is a specious argument. One has nothing to do with the other.


When we get involved in these conflicts it inevitably ends up worse. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. They are all now or will be worse off than before we “did something”.


Is this what Ben Franklin meant when he stated: “Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later.” Or John Adams prescient statement of the arrogance of power: “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.”


Will we ever learn through conflict after conflict to just butt out?


I feel for the innocents in all the Middle East. Their lives revolve around one tragedy after another. But we as a nation must adhere to the Constitution. That document is, as were the founders, very specific about matters of war.


George Washington adamantly stated: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”


If something is to be done, let Congress deliberate and authorize it, not President Cruise Missile.


As evil a human being as Assad is, just like Egypt and Libya, if he falls things will be much worse.


After that – watch for Iraq and Lebanon – they’re next.


Caliphate anyone?