NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles








Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools, and Systems Education









By Lynn Stuter
September 3, 2013

Last week, I outlined the connections between the illegal occupier of the Oval Office and the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization. I outlined the fact that Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I asked about the security of state secrets, considering the infiltration of the executive branch of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the time that piece was written, the chemical weapon attack on Syrian citizens was only four days old. Even though no clear evidence existed that Bashar al-Assad, dictator of Syria, was responsible for that attack, Obama was already claiming such to be the case. On August 21, 2013, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest issued this statement on behalf of Obama,

"The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today. We are working urgently to gather additional information." (emphasis added)

This, of course, makes it very apparent that Obama and company had already decided that al-Assad was responsible; a stance that has not changed even though many questioned why, if a U.N. chemical weapons team was on the ground in Damascus, would al-Assad risk a chemical weapon attack so close to their location.

On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain lost a Parliament vote to align with Obama on a Syrian strike. The next day, the White House issued a press brief in which Obama claimed "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013."

Unfortunately, "high confidence" is not a definitive; it is a subjective; as good as saying, "we think" instead of "we know." In reading the aforementioned press brief, it becomes very apparent that Obama does not have definitive proof that al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack.

No doubt Americans are mindful of those Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell knew Saddam Hussein had but that were, after the fact, never found in Iraq.

On Saturday, August 31, 2013, with Vice President Biden standing conspicuously on his right, Obama addressed America from the Rose Garden at the White House. While the press brief on August 30 showed "high confidence", read how that played out in Obama's address to America,

"Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

"Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government."

"We think" just turned into "we know" – just like that! Remember, this is the same man who, on August 21, 2013, claimed al-Assad was behind the chemical weapon attack!

Obama then backed off his original stance that he was going to strike Syria without the approval of Congress. His excuse is priceless and certainly goes against prior actions by Obama in cramming his Obama-knows-best policies down the throats of the American people for-their-own-good,

"But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

That Obama thinks we are a "constitutional democracy" is telling, indeed. We were established as a constitutional republic with rule of law. A democracy is a form of government in which rule is by men according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices – a form of government Obama has embarked on repeatedly, with his Obama-knows-best policies, while Congress dithered and wrung its impotent little hands.

But suddenly, the I-want-to-be-popular illegal occupier of the Oval Office did a back pedal; undoubtedly having to do with whispers of impeachment; the Rigell letter which, at this time, has garnered the signatures of 116 House Democrats and Republicans; and the increasing number of anti-war protests going on across the United States.

Beyond the fact that clear-cut evidence is yet to surface in the Damascus chemical weapon attack, there are a few other inconsistencies that require our attention.

After the statement above, in what appears to be a face-saving motion, Obama then stated, "Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization …."

Let's go back a few years, to December 20, 2007, to an interview Obama did with Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe. In response to the question – "In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?" – this is how Obama responded,

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."


In answer to the same question, same date, Vice President Joe Biden said,

"The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. Thus, the President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force."

Joe Biden seems quite consistent in his position. Consider this speech, made July 30, 1998, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in which then Senator Biden vehemently asserted that the president does not have the authority for use-of-force without the consent of Congress. In a December 27, 2007 speech, Senator Biden threatened that he "would make it his business to impeach" Bush if he went to war with Iran without Congressional approval.

Oops, again! No wonder Vice President Biden stands silent as Obama asserts he has the authority to strike Syria without Congressional approval! While Biden has claimed it was al-Assad who launched the chemical weapon attack, I found no instance in which he claimed that Obama had the authority to strike without Congressional approval.

In his Rose Garden speech, Obama asserted,

"If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?" (As written)

When I read this, a few thoughts came to my mind concerning a few other "heinous acts".

What about Benghazi, Libya and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods? This is the same heinous act about which Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a fit of anger, blurted, "What difference does it make?" This is the same heinous act now linked to an al Qaeda cell in Egypt as well as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood! This is the same heinous act that has been covered up by Obama and company.

What about the drone strikes, carried out by both Bush and Obama, more by Obama than Bush, that have killed innocent women and children in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism alleged that 391 to 780 civilians were killed out of a total of 1,658 to 2,597, including 160 children." (source)

This quote concerns only those casualties of drone strikes in Pakistan; it does not include Afghanistan and Yemen. Does hypocrite come to mind? Or do we say that this is just okay because it's the United States killing innocent women and children, committing heinous acts of genocide?

What about the Coptic Christians in Egypt that have been targeted and murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood which has connections to Barack Obama? Is this okay, too, because it's Coptic Christians and not Sunni Muslims who comprise the Muslim Brotherhood?

What about the people killed by the Syrian rebels? Why do we not hear Barack Obama denouncing the killing, by Syrian rebels, of Christians, innocent women and children, and Shia Muslims? And what about this claim, by Walid Shoebat, who actually speaks and reads Arabic, that Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical weapon attack in Damascus? Consider also, this article which concerns various reports of Syrian rebels with weaponized sarin gas.

The pot calling the kettle black does seem to apply, doesn't it?

Which brings us to the question–What is this insistence on striking Syria really all about?

How much does this insistence of Obama have to do with the fact that Bashar al-Assad is a Shia Muslim as opposed to the Sunni Muslims to whom Obama is connected via the Muslim Brotherhood?

How much does this insistence of Obama have to do with Syrian natural resources, the movement of natural resources, and payment for natural resources – the unspoken impetus the American people have seen before for invading Middle East countries?

Whatever the reasons, the American people can bet they aren't being told the truth, not even close. Considering the killing of innocent women and children, under the authority of Barack Obama, the claims of "heinous acts" and "unspeakable outrage" is unadulterated hypocrisy!

The Barack Obama connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is something that our Congress is duty-bound to investigate; also the infiltration of the executive branch of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has now occupied our Oval Office for going on five years. Why has Congress not done its duty, in not only investigating the Muslim Brotherhood connection, but also the fact that Obama is not our legal president?

On August 30, 2013, I received an e-mail from my Representative to Congress, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. In part, that e-mail stated,

"As a Member of Congress, I view it as my duty to help move our country forward by addressing the many problems and challenges that our nation currently faces. Many disagree with the President's policies, especially with respect to the economy. Although I disagree with his policies, I do not believe impeachment of the President would move our nation forward or get our economy back on the path to economic prosperity. Our Constitution provides voters with a mechanism every four years to determine whether the majority of Americans agree with the work of the President and his Administration." (emphasis added)

Compare this to McMorris Rodgers' comments in a 31-page strategy document released by the House Republican Conference, entitled Fighting Washington for All Americans before the August recess:

"We know that Washington is broken. It spends too much, borrows too much, and takes too much. It targets people for what they believe. It chokes out jobs with more red tape, blocks new energy resources and makes our health care crisis worse. Our government is out of control."

Will the real Cathy McMorris Rodgers please stand up! If Washington is broken, if our government is out of control, what are Republicans doing to correct that situation? The answer, as has become blatantly apparent, is nothing beyond political rhetoric. The above document reeks of choreographed meetings intended to make Republicans look good when, in reality, Republicans have done nothing to stop the forward march of the Obama agenda to destroy America.

I could not allow McMorris Rodgers' blatant disregard for her oath of office, shown in her e-mail, to go without response. As such, I responded as follows:

"You know, very well, that Obama was not elected, he was selected by the hacking and programming of voting machines wherein the votes cast did not equate to the votes counted.

"So no, the people did not speak, in either 2008 or 2012. So that constitutional avenue for electing those who represent us now stands as fraudulent. You know it, the American people also know it.

"You have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution, including Article II, Section I, Clause 5 requiring our president be natural born. You know very well, knew before Congress certified the electoral college in January 2009, that Obama could not be our legal president. Yet you did nothing. Our Constitution also provides Congress with the means and authority to remove an illegal president. You know it, I know it. Yet you try to pass your responsibility off as respecting "the will of the people." What a lame excuse, considering "the will of the people" has been proven fraudulent.

"Your e-mail below sends a very clear message, and that message is – 'my political power is much more important to me than upholding the United States Constitution; than doing what is right for our country.'

"That attitude is exactly what has brought our nation to where it is now – on the brink of destruction – what you euphemistically term 'moving forward.'

"You will soon have three children. You are insuring your children will live under the mantel of tyranny.

"Shame on you. And shame on you that your children are not as important to you as your political power is!"

Representative McMorris Rodgers' name does not appear among the 116 Representatives that signed the Rigell letter. In 2012, leading up to her re-election, McMorris Rodgers had this to say, regarding Syria,

"At this time in regards to Syria, I would be hesitant to put further demands on our extended military resources. We must always be cautious before we send our greatest treasure – our youth - into harms way. In any military intervention, the top consideration must be to the potential threats to our national security."

On September 1, 2013, this picture appeared of McMorris Rodgers headed to "a classified members-only briefing on Syria by senior administration officials on Capitol Hill, Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013, in Washington."

Where does she stand now? Considering her ability to tell voters what she thinks they want to hear, who knows!

The sad part is that McMorris Rodgers' e-mail response is typical of our spineless elected officials in Washington DC, who would rather see our nation destroyed than be called "racists" by the mainstream media for removing someone who is not legally our president, someone whose connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an enemy of the United States, makes him a traitor beyond the fact that he is not our legal president. Cowering behind what seems to be the universal excuse proffered for why they have done nothing to remove this illegal president – that "the people have spoken" (democracy at its finest), Congress continues to sidestep its duty in the matter.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Can we expect Congress to stand up Obama, given their track record of refusing to hold this wannabe dictator accountable? Don't count on it. At the same time, the mainstream media, so down on Bush for invading Iraq, will continue to tag along behind Obama, hanging on his every word, broadcasting whatever propaganda comes out of the Oval Office.

But beyond the propaganda lies the reality. And the reality is that Obama, with the consent of Congress, wants to lob missiles into an already war-torn country, killing more people, including innocent women and children. If that is not insanity, what is?

This is the same man who went about the world, in his first term, apologizing for America's arrogance. If lobbing missiles into Syria isn't arrogance, what is?

All this is mindful of another man, not that far distant in history, that started a world war because he was not only arrogant but also insane.

Click here to visit home page.

� 2013 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site:










With regard to these media pundits, isn't supporting policies that will enslave oneself the definition of mental insanity? Considering that most of the shooters have had connections to liberal progressive (i.e., communist) ideology, maybe we need to pass a law forbidding liberals from owning guns for the safety of all law-abiding citizens!