(FOX NEWS) — Late Tuesday afternoon at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing regarding intervention in Syria, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., took his turn to question those assembled to testify.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry took questions from Paul and his fellow committee members.
Shortly after Committee Chair Robert Menendez, D-N.J., gave Paul the floor, the conservative Kentucky mentioned how he, though not a fervent supporter of President Barack Obama, was “proud” of Obama for granting the Congress the ability to question key members of the administration.
“I was just about to stand on my feet and clap, and give him a standing ovation–and then I heard [Obama say that] well, but, if I lose the [Congressional] vote, I’ll probably go and do the bombing anyway,” Paul said, “I want to be proud of the president, but every time I’m just about there, then I get word that really– he doesn’t mean it.”
Paul then turned to Kerry and asked that the former Massachusetts Senator “make [him] proud today” that the Obama administration followed the Constitution and allowed any Congressional vote on the matter of intervening in Syria to be legally binding. Kerry responded by saying that President Obama would make Paul proud “because he has the Constitutional authority” to make a decision on the matter, and would be therefore “keeping with the Constitution”.
Paul disagreed with Kerry’s assertion, citing wording in the Federalist Papers, written by former president James Madison. He then told Kerry that, should the administration ignore Congress’ decision, the entirety of the lengthy hearing Tuesday would amount to nothing more than “Constitutional theater”.
Side note: is that John McCain playing poker around the 3:01 mark when he hides behind Paul?
Glenn played some incredible audio this morning on the radio program of radio commentator Paul Harvey from 1965. Glenn knew Harvey, and described him as “absolutely inspired of God.”
The Blaze reported: “If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’
And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.
f I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing. Paul Harvey, good day.”
“That is unbelievable,” Glenn said after listening to the audio.
Of the line, “I would lure you into bed and give you disease to which there is no cure,” Pat noted was way ahead of it’s time. “That wasn’t the case in 1965. We had no idea about AIDS—that’s amazing,” he said.
“When you listen to that now you say, those are our problems,” Glenn told listeners. “Those are the problems of our society. Those are the ills.”
Glenn pointed back to what he calls “Phase 1,” the transformation of the nation and to weaken it to the point of crisis. “If you listen to what he just said, that’s phase 1,” Glenn said.
Glenn explained that just how the devil wants your soul forever, that by creating a system for ours to collapse into, people would end up begging for the things America once stood against. “What you would never, ever ask for today, I’m going to make it your idea. If I’m the devil,” Glenn explained, “I make you beg for it.”
TheBlaze reported: In response to what some consider over-reaching surveillance programs conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, which have been shown to collect thousands of communications with no terror connection, a group decrying the privacy implications of these programs is turning the tables on the president.
“The position of the president is a state secret. The White House website shows only Barack Obama’s schedule from the current day, but never dates beyond. The accuracy of this information is controversial. Obama, on the other hand, knows your entire calendar,” the creators Kim Asendorf, Ole Fach, Kyle McDonald and Jonas Lund said of the project. “Every person in the world can now participate in the supervision of the President.”
Speaking with the Creator’s Project, McDonald explained that the idea was initially spurred by the global search for whistleblower Edward Snowden after his initial leak about the NSA’s classified programs.
“The same way the press made the leaks a story about tracking Snowden, we wanted to turn it into a story about tracking Obama,” McDonald said. “To show how ridiculous it is to pin stories like this down to a single person, and to give people the feeling that maybe we have the same power that the government does, if only we organize ourselves. With that power, how do we want to use it? Who do we want to track? Will we emulate the government, antagonize them, or reject their example completely?”
Where is Obama? has users report the position of the president with a marker on Google maps. The creators believe that with “all user inputs of the last few hours, a probable position of President (can be) calculated using a complex algorithm.”
If there are no entries, the group assumes this would mean Obama is in the White House.
The site would only function correctly though if it had a strong enough base of users properly tagging the president’s approximate location, but perhaps the point of tracking the president in the manner is more of a political statement anyway.
Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh acknowledges building evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged to frame President Bashar al-Assad.
On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, the talk show host acknowledged reports from the Associated Press that the admitted intelligence on Syria’s chemical weapons attack was “no slam dunk.”
He also announced he believes Obama may have been “complicit” in the attack and possibly helped plan it.
Limbaugh expressed doubt over allegations Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Limbaugh asked if the allegations are true, what does Assad have to gain?
On Saturday morning, the talk show host received a note from a friend who spent time in the Middle East. In the note, Limbaugh’s friend vouched for Assad, claiming there’s “nothing in it for him,” and “he’s not that kind of guy,” describing the note as “almost a personal reference for Bashar.”
Limbaugh initially dismissed the claim and filed the note away stating “everybody wants to do my job” and “everybody wants to influence what I say.”
“Anybody can write me anything and say anything, says Limbaugh. I have to be very careful.
“I just can’t accept what somebody sends me in an email and run with it. So, I ran the theory by a couple of people whose opinion on these things I respect over the years. They both said ‘Na, na, na, that’s a little crazy.’”
However, Limbaugh changed his mind when he discovered another piece making similar accusations by a journalist named Yossef Bodansky.
In the article Bodansky argues the “deception playing out in Syria is a deception similar to the one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims.”
According to Limbaugh, “If this is true, this is the setup of all time.”
The article alleges the “US had intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war changing event.”
“We could be looking at a frame job. Pretty big setup,” says Limbaugh.
“The rebels nerve gassed themselves in order to engineer a response that takes out Bashar, putting the US on the side of Al-Qaeda,” alleges Mr. Bodansky.
Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the chemical weapons attack in Syria adds him to a growing list of people who believe the attack to be a staged false flag provocation.
The talk radio icon joins a long list of credible experts including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jerome Corsi, who see evidence the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.
Without sounding like an alarmist, is this how serious our supposed representatives take their job in serving our country? I don’t know about you, but it’s time to clean house!
Washington Post reports: As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”
We eagerly await the photographic proof, but generally trust Melina’s sharp eye.
TheBlaze reported: An Israeli dentist is riding the wave of criticism of President Barack Obama over his vacillating on a decision to launch a military strike on Syria.
The 3/4 page ad for the Dr. Balan implant clinic published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz features a photo of Obama with the Hebrew caption “Haven’t got any teeth?”
According to the Times of Israel, the English version of the ad — which was prepared by the same agency but was not published in the Hebrew paper — has the the caption “Lost your bite?”
It’s notable that the ad appeared in the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, demonstrating just how widespread the criticism of Obama has been in Israel.
Israel has said it is not party to the conflict in Syria and in fact any U.S. strike on Syria could have serious repercussions for Israel with both President Bashar Assad and Iran threatening to attack the Jewish State in the event of a U.S. military strike.
The criticism has been largely focused on Obama’s drawing a red line then delaying and seemingly reversing course by deferring to Congress, raising concern in Israel that the U.S. president won’t be resolute in facing Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Newspapers from across the political spectrum published analyses criticizing Obama not implementing the “red line” he set a year ago, suggesting President Bashar Assad would face military consequences were he to use chemical weapons. As TheBlaze reported, Israeli politicians over the weekend said Obama’s move “sends the wrong message to Iran” and that “in Tehran, they’re opening the champagne.”
The Islamic Republic’s march toward nuclear weapons is viewed in Israel as potentially posing an existential threat.
Breitbart reported: As union members and their leaders have become increasingly opposed to ObamaCare’s restrictions, the White House is reportedly considering a plan to offer health insurance subsidies–which were originally intended for the uninsured–to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored health insurance plans.
According to InsideHealthPolicy, the White House is working on regulations to address the unions’ concerns about Taft-Hartley plans:
Separately, the Office of Management and Budget previously showed on its regulatory review web site that on Aug. 24 it received a Department of Labor proposed rule on “Health Insurance Premium Assistance Trust Supporting the Purchase of Certain Individual Health Insurance Policies.” The rule, which OMB said is ACA-related, also appears to deal with the exclusion from a definition of an employee welfare benefit plan, but this week the description vanished.
Group health plans are employee welfare benefit plans that are established or maintained by an employer, by an employee organization such as a union, or both. The Labor department on Tuesday (Aug. 27) did not return requests for comment as to why the health insurance premium assistance trust proposed rule and description were taken down.
Multi-employer “Taft-Hartley” plans have tried to convince HHS that these plans should qualify as approved insurance plans in order to allow employees to obtain premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions. Without subsidies, employers will be pressured to end their contributions.
As healthcare policy expert Avik Roy explains at Forbes:
Workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify for subsidized coverage on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Those subsidies are designed for low-income people whoaren’t offered coverage from their employers, and have to shop for insurance on their own. But the labor union leaders want those subsidies to also apply to their members with employer-sponsored coverage, even though they already get those benefits tax-free due to the employer tax exclusion for health insurance.
Whether a union “fix” will work is still debatable. Rachana Dixit at InsideHealthPolicy wrote:
Democratic aides and sources off Capitol Hill say conversations about unions’ concerns are ongoing, and they say that the administration is working on regulations to address the issue. But, it is not clear if the proposed Department of Labor rule” would satisfy unions’ concerns.
“Separately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D., Calif.] said to union members earlier this month that she was still working to resolve their concerns about the law, particularly on the Taft-Hartley plan issue,” Dixit wrote.
However, as Roy observes, this “concern” is not exactly an “issue,” but, rather, a matter of union leaders “seeking special treatment, and additional taxpayer subsidies, that other participants in employer-sponsored coverage don’t get.”
As Breitbart News reported Monday, 40,000 longshoremen have now quit the AFL-CIO because of the union’s support of ObamaCare’s confiscatory tax on their “Cadillac” healthcare plans.
In addition, a report from InsideHealthPolicy indicated that leaders of the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite HERE unions have slammed the Obama administration because their employees will be unable to access subsidies to purchase coverage for their “Taft-Hartley” multi-employer insurance plans.
In a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in July, the leaders wrote that ObamaCare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
Roy notes, however, that the text of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is clear: coverage through an employer-sponsored health plan disqualifies subsidized coverage eligibility in a state exchange, “because you already get a subsidy through the tax code,” i.e., enrollees do not pay income or payroll taxes on the value of their health insurance coverage.
He concludes:
If, suddenly, the 20 million people on Taft-Hartley plans were eligible for subsidies, Obamacare’s costs would skyrocket. If half of those Taft-Hartley enrollees gained $5,000 per year in tax credits along with their tax-free health benefits, we’re talking $50 billion a year in additional insurance subsidies for those individuals. That’s more than half a trillion dollars over ten years, accounting for health inflation.
I would say that it’s inconceivable that the White House would seek to impose such a “fix” to Obamacare without the consent of Congress. But, given the other changes that the administration has made to the health law—of similarly questionable legality—we can’t rule anything out.
Breitbart reported: Labor unions are frustrated with President Barack Obama over Obamacare, and leaders are indicating that their members will blame Obama and Democrats if Obamacare causes them to lose their health insurance or jobs.
D. Taylor, the president of Unite Here which “represents about 250,000 workers at hotels, casinos, stadiums and the food service industry,” told The Hill that union members “will blame the people who passed that bill and did nothing to fix it.”
“You can’t blame the Republicans on this one,” Taylor said. “This is a Democratic bill through and through.”
In particular, union members are concerned Obamacare will incentivize employers to cut back on hours or eliminate positions to comply with Obamacare requirements. In addition, union members believe that since the multi-employer “Taft-Hartley” heath plans are not eligible for tax subsidies, “employers may have the incentive to drop the plans and force workers onto the insurance exchanges.” The Hill notes it would be more costly for workers.
“We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Taylor said.
Obama will speak at the AFL-CIO convention next week as labor unions have been more vocal about their concerns before the Obamacare exchanges are set to open in October.
According to The Hill, Unite Here, the UFCW, and the Teamsters have pressed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) while the Laborers’ International Union of North America wrote a letter to Obama asking for changes in the law. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) have also “said that without changes to the law, their members could lose their healthcare plans.”
If there was ever a video more important in exposing the true Barack Hussein Obama, it’s this one. Even taking into considerations the occasional ‘slip of the tongue,’ this video gives clear proof Barack Obama is anti-American in every sense of the word.
I pose the rhetorical question: How could ‘We the People’ come to elect not once but twice, a president that considers Islam, the same political ideology that murdered over 3,000 people on 9/11/2001 in an act of war?
Conservative Angle Archives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.