Schumer, Pelosi among Democrats to react to Syria strike

Seems some of the Dems can't adapt to a real man in charge. They miss the old days when their fearless leader, or as Col Ralph Peters would say, "the pussy" was in charge. Barry is the reason Putin is calling the shots in Syria.

There is really only one solution here. Bashar al-Assad and his entire family have to die. Yes, I said his entire family. If this does not occur all we'll do is perpetuate the situation.  

That little bastard you see here is responsible for 400,000 dead and the reason Europe is flooded with Muslims.

The image of seven dead children who were gassed in Syria. Frozen in time, eyes open, with not a mark on them. 

----------------------------------------

Democrats on Thursday responded to reports that President Trump authorized a cruise missile strike on an airbase in Syria, and the reaction appeared to be mixed.

"I support the administration's strike on the air base that launched the chemical attack. I hope this teaches President Assad not to use chemical weapons again," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said.

Trump’s quick action was in response to the chemical attack that left as many as 72 civilians dead, including woman and children.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and former vice presidential candidate, issued a statement: “Congress will work with the President, but his failure to seek Congressional approval is unlawful.”

The statements came as the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk missiles targeted at an airbase at Shayrat. The attack was targeted at the airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas in the base, officials said.

"Any further action will require close scrutiny by Congress," Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill., said.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., also commented on the importance of Congressional approval, saying, "Any longer-term or larger military operation in Syria by the Trump Administration will need to be done in consultation with the Congress."

“This week’s unspeakable chemical weapons attack is only the latest in a long series of horrors perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad on innocent men, women, and children,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement issued on the attacks in Syria. “Tonight’s strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the the regime’s use of chemical weapons. If the President intends to escalate the U.S. military’s involvement in Syria, he must  come to Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force which is tailored to meet the threat and prevent another open-ended war in the Middle East.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that, "making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do."

"It is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it. I salute the professionalism and skill of our Armed Forces who took action today," Schumer added.

While most came out in support of the strike, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI, released a statement on Thursday condemning the attack.

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that, “this escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.”

Gabbard said the Trump administration had “acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, condemned the Syrian chemical attacks, saying their “actions underscore why the United States should embrace innocent people who are fleeing in terror.”

“The Constitution gives the power to authorize the use of military force to the legislative branch. Expanded military intervention in Syria requires action by Congress,” Warren said in a statement on the U.S. strikes on Syria. “If President Trump expects such an authorization, he owes the American people an explanation of his strategy to bring an end to the violence in Syria. We should not escalate this conflict without clear goals and a plan to achieve them.”

Schumer, Pelosi among Democrats to react to Syria strike

Scrabble

This is a clever E-mail

Someone out there

Must be "deadly" at Scrabble.

Wait till you see the last one!

PRESBYTERIAN : 

When you rearrange the letters: 

BEST IN PRAYER

ASTRONOMER : 

When you rearrange the letters: 

MOON STARER

DESPERATION : 

When you rearrange the letters: 

A ROPE ENDS IT

THE EYES :

When you rearrange the letters: 

THEY SEE

GEORGE BUSH: 

When you rearrange the letters: 

HE BUGS GORE 

THE MORSE CODE :

When you rearrange the letters: 

HERE COME DOTS

DORMITORY : 

When you rearrange the letters: 

DIRTY ROOM

SLOT MACHINES: 

When you rearrange the letters: 

CASH LOST IN ME

ELECTION RESULTS :

When you rearrange the letters: 

LIES - LET'S RECOUNT

SNOOZE ALARMS :

When you rearrange the letters: 

ALAS! NO MORE Z'S

A DECIMAL POINT :

When you rearrange the letters: 

I'M A DOT IN PLACE

THE EARTHQUAKES :

When you rearrange the letters: 

THAT QUEER SHAKE

ELEVEN PLUS TWO :

When you rearrange the letters: 

TWELVE PLUS ONE

AND FINALLY.... 

FOR THE GRAND FINALE :

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

When you rearrange the letters: 

An Arab Backed Imposter

Scrabble

Wiretap: Obama's Legacy Just Got Dealt Its Final Blow

By ADAM CASALINO

Anybody paying attention to the news this past weekend is understandably exhausted. Normally the weekends are a welcome break for most people; the big issues are carried on the shoulders of Monday through Friday, giving us a respite for two short days.

But not these days.

It seems news from Washington flies out at a breakneck pace, with new revelations and stories coming too fast for the average, mortal viewer to keep track of. Even as someone who actually tries to keep informed, I have a hard time staying ahead of the curve.

Last week President Donald Trump addressed the Joint Session of Congress in a speech that was widely considered a success. Even his critics had positive things to say about it. In fact, anything negative that came out of that night had nothing to do with the POTUS, but a former campaign aide by the name of Dan Grilo. His career, of course, is over, but Trump came out looking great.

The best the liberals could do to combat the speech (aside from giving a bizarre rebuttal) was release a bogus story about Jeff Sessions speaking with a Russian ambassador, but even that 24-hour story was co-opted by the bombshell statement by President Trump that Obama was wiretapping his tower during the election.

News came fast and hard that suggested President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump's communications during and after the election in order to discover possible Russian connections.

We know, of course, that Trump had no connections with Russia. How do we know? Because if there were anything legitimate to be found, Obama would have revealed long before he left office. If Trump were colluding with Russia to undermine our democracy, surely the sitting President of the United States would have had to act on it, right? That wouldn't have meant Hillary would then get the office, but at least Trump would have been brought to justice.

The fact that nothing credible has come out from the former White House or intelligence agencies strongly indicates that nothing happened between Russia or Trump's campaign, or that Russia was even involved in the Wikileaks email dump.

But, hang on, maybe Obama didn't violate the Fourth Amendment and tap Trump's phone calls. Maybe that is just a wild accusation on the part of President Trump.

Then where is all this evidence of Trump's connection with Russia coming from?

Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Trump, in a brilliant move, has trapped the left in their own scheme. By suggesting that President Obama illegally spied on his conversations, he is forcing the Democrats to either admit Obama broke the law (thus damning his legacy once and for all) or backing down on their obviously false accusations about Russia.

Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that all kinds of wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best...

Whatever President Trump’s intentions were in using Twitter to touch off this firestorm, one of the immediate effects has been letting the gas out of all those speculative Trump stories. The Democratic media is now furiously working to prove all of its own previous coverage of the Trump-Russia allegations was little more than idle speculation, every bit as lacking in hard evidence as Trump’s accusation that Obama was tapping his phones. (via Breitbart)

Trump's got the liberal media by the balls. They can't stand on so-called "evidence" that Trump was working with Russia, without implicating that it was President Obama who got his hands dirty.

But if they do that, then they have to admit their accusations against the man were unfounded to begin with. So the liberal media is stuck with a big problem: either protect the man they had worshiped for eight years or destroy his credibility in continuing to attack Trump.

You see, the real problem is that Obama doesn't have the best track record when it comes to illegal spying. In 2013 we learned about the NSA's PRISM program that allowed intelligence agencies to gather data on just about everything you are doing.

According to the Post, the National Security Agency and FBI are “tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading US Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.” The program is code-named PRISM, and was leaked to the newspaper by a “career intelligence offer” who said, “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type.” (via Breitbart)

The program was created in 2007 (yes we always have reason to hate Bush), but instead of closing it down, President Obama expanded it.

Why is this so wrong? Because it is a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, which are:

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.

"Papers and effects" means the things we own, including letters and communications. That extends to emails, text messages, images, video, etc., everything Obama's cronies were siphoning from the Internet. All without the oversight of the judicial system in the issuing of warrants.

What was all this spying for? Was it to combat terrorism? Obviously not, considering some of the recent terror attacks on U.S. soil had obvious clues on social media. Both the San Bernardino and Orlando killers used Facebook extensively. You mean to tell me the NSA couldn't find posts and data on those people about their allegiance to ISIS before they killed innocent people?

I'm sure they did, but under Obama, our deep state wasn't in the business of protecting America, but acquiring dirt on his political rivals. Obama used the IRS to bully Tea Party and conservative non-profits. We know that he ordered spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And even recently we discovered he tried to influence French elections.

When considering the depths Obama would go to secure his own power or have his way, it's not a big stretch to think he'd abuse his executive authority to spy on Donald Trump. The temptation to uncover a Russian connection would have been too overwhelming, for the man who strongly opposed Trump from the very beginning. Had President Obama discovered a smoking gun, the liberal media would have overlooked whatever steps he took to find it. If he found nothing, he was convinced his cronies in the deep state would have kept their mouths shut.

But clearly, someone didn't and let the dirty secret slip to the most dangerous man in American politics: President Trump. Now the House Intelligence Committee will be investigating the allegations in their larger case in Russian involvement during the election. Rest assured, if President Obama was breaking the law to spy on Trump, it will come to light.

Either way, President Trump has put a cap on this Russian hysteria, and once again, the Democrats are on the losing end.

Wiretap: Obama's Legacy Just Got Dealt Its Final Blow

Plans for World War III

Plans for World War III

The Susan Rice saga: Murky allegations and media reluctance

If the MSM could ignore 'golf and grandchildren' this should be no problem. After all, when you're fishing for Russians and unexpectedly catch Trumpsters who's fault is that?

--------------------------------------------------

The Susan Rice situation is murky, but one thing that’s crystal clear is that she’s changing her story.

And that is raising a whole lot of questions about the tangled allegations that the Obama administration “unmasked” Donald Trump or his associates when they were picked up on foreign intercepts.

When Rice was asked about this by PBS’s Judy Woodruff a couple of weeks ago, the former national security adviser said she knew nothing about it and was just learning about it from news reports.

It never gets old. Head of the NSA... but learns everything from the news reports.

But in the wake of reports by Fox News and Bloomberg’s Eli Lake that Rice had done the unmasking, she broke her silence yesterday on MSNBC.

“It was not uncommon” to make these requests and “necessary” to do her job, Rice told Andrea Mitchell. She needed to know the names of the Americans picked up on the intercepts, but it’s “absolutely false” to say this was done “for political purposes.” 

So she’s now gone from professed ignorance to nothing improper.

In fairness to Rice, it may turn out that what she did was perfectly legal. But there are now a whole host of troubling questions.

Did she seek the identities of Trump folks solely for intelligence reasons, or did she have political motivations?

Who did she share the information with?

Did she leak any of the findings, or cause them to be leaked? Rice denied leaking anything to do with her successor, Michael Flynn, whose false denials about contacts with the Russian ambassador led President Trump to fire him. “I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would,” she said.

This brings us to the role of the media.

Since the allegations were minimized yesterday by the Washington Post and New York Times (with the Times depicting them as something bouncing around conservative media), some critics on the right say they are covering for Rice. ABC and NBC didn't cover them on Monday's evening newscasts, while the "CBS Evening News" quoted a former official as saying Rice did "nothing improper or political."

I’d suggest the situation is complicated. It looks to me that many news outlets were unable to confirm the allegations, which raises the dilemma of whether you publish something based on other outlets citing unnamed sources when your own reporters can’t verify it.

Of course, some of these same outlets have run with stories, also involving anonymous sources, about alleged collusion between Trump associates and Russia.

It’s fair to say they are more enthusiastic about that story.

But there’s a difference between not confirming publishing allegations and denigrating them, which is what some at CNN have been doing.

Anchor Don Lemon told viewers “we will not insult your intelligence” by suggesting the Trump team was spied on illegally, “nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”

How does Lemon know it’s a diversion? Shouldn’t he want to know all the facts? It’s true that the latest story does not confirm Trump’s original charge that the previous administration targeted him for wiretapping, but that doesn’t mean other surveillance was properly handled.

CNN’s national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, was equally condescending, saying the Bloomberg scoop on Rice was “largely ginned up, partly as a distraction from this larger investigation.”

Not only is Sciutto dismissing legitimate questions, he worked for the Obama State Department as a diplomat from 2011 to 2013. I think the better course would have been to recuse himself.

Right now the media are on two different planets: Those more interested in proving a Russia/Trump conspiracy and those more interested in proving an Obama surveillance conspiracy. Hard facts are hard to come by, but it would be nice if the same standards were applied to both parts of this bizarre story.

The Susan Rice saga: Murky allegations and media reluctance