Obamacare benefits....?

The unions don't like it.

Workers losing their health care coverage don't like it.

Workers being shifted to 29hrs because their employers can't afford Obamacare don't like it.

People buying on the exchanges have to pay more than they used to so they don't like it.

People who haven't lost their insurance are afraid they might so they don't like it.

Young people who have to pay big bucks for something they don't need don't like it.

So who does like it?

The dependent class, the folks who can't carry their own weight.  Not those who have physical or mental limitations but those who just don't mind living off the sweat of another persons brow.

The whole purpose of Obamacare is to make more Americans dependent and to pay off the already dependent for voting for Obama and Democrats in general.

Obamacare the biggest bribe in the history of America!

What the Pope really said; it's probably not what you think

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/what_the_pope_really_said.html

Iran Contra II; liberal hypocrisy on Benghazi

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_hypocrisy_of_iran_contra_ii.html

Liberals; afraid of guns in the hands of honest men.

Liberals keep trying to make it hard for honest law abiding Americans to have guns.

Simultaneously liberals oppose harsher sentencing for people who use guns in crimes.

So it can't be that liberals are opposed to or afraid of guns in general.  If that were the case they'd be leading the march to put gun using crooks, the only people who sane folk don't want to have guns, who use guns away for a long time.

It would appear that liberals actually are mostly concerned about average Americans having guns. Bill Clinton went so far as to effectively make US military bases gun free zones--there were Marines at the Navy Yard with guns but they weren't allowed to have ammo so they had to stand by and watch the tragedy unfold.

I think that the root cause is that liberals are afraid of the hoi polloi as are most folks with aspirations to dictatorship.

Liberals want to impose what they believe is good on us--ranging from promiscuous sex to small sodas-- and they want to make sure that we have no way to say no to government edicts.

Please pray for the victims of the Navy Yard shooting and their families!

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art though amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Obamaland where Obama can do no wrong.

see my commentary at American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_chicago_way_in_obamaland.html

Obama trusts Assad more than he trusts Americans.

Wow in order to walk back his idiotic red line Obama is going to trust Assad to surrender all of his chemical weapons and to do it by the middle of next year.

Tell you what let me pay my taxes 9 months late; you can trust me for it!  Oh yeah and don't bother to check my taxes you can trust me to do them right!

Israel and an attack on Syria

Any US strike on Syria would be bad news for Israel.  There's no doubt that Assad would either directly or through proxies like Hizballah attack Israel. Right now Assad is afraid to do that because the last thing he wants is Israel injecting itself into the Syrian civil war.

But those short term attacks are not the real problem from the Israeli perspective. The real problem is that anything that helps get rid of Assad is very likely to be bad for Israel.

Israel probably realizes that they're better off with Assad than with the rebels just as Israel better off with the Mubarak's Egypt and the newest Egypt than with Mursi's Egypt.  Better a hostile but sane neighbor than a hostile neighbor convinced that Allah is calling for genocide.

Assad is afraid enough of Israel to limit the support he provides to Hizballah.  If the Syrian rebels win and if the extremists have any influence--which they seem to have-- we can expect to see the limits on what sort of weapons go to Syria, including WMDs, quickly, even if only temporarily lifted. And if you believe that the UN or any other organization can be sure it gets all of Syria's chemical weapons, where a man can carry enough to kill thousands, then I've got a great deal on a time share for an over water transportation system in Brooklyn I'd like to interest you in.

Syria transferring advanced Russian weapons or residual Syrian chemical weapons to Hizballah is the real nightmare for Israel.  Hizballah armed with long range missiles loaded with nerve agents that can be absorbed through the skin, and hence not stopped by gas masks, could be an existential threat to both Israel and the Middle East.

It's not inconceivable that if thousands of Israeli citizens are murdered by a Hizballah chemical attack that Israel will retaliate against Hizballah, or Iran, with nuclear weapons. Before rejecting that possibility ask yourself what the American public would demand if Hizballah killed hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers with a chemical attack? 

Syria; an Obama victory

The media will portray Syria as a marvelous victory for Obama.  It was Obama's resolute stand that forced Syria to agree with Russia's suggestion of putting chemical weapons under the control of an international body after all.

The media will ignore that no one who listened to Obama's red line and then red line what red line or to Kerry's sabre rattling will think that Obama was in fact resolute about anything other than avoiding taking a political blood bath in the USA.

The media will ignore that no international organization can prevent Syria from using the "controlled" chemical weapons unless they move the chemical weapons out of Syria.  And just what country is going to be willing to host Syria's chemical weapons?

The media will ignore that a lot of nerve gas goes a long way so how can anyone know if the Syrians have turned it all over?  It only takes thousandths of a gram of Sarin to kill someone so even if the Syrians can only hide a thousand pounds, a fraction of the weight of an SUV which range from 2000 to 8000+ pounds, they'd still have enough to kill a lot of civilians.  After the US liberated Iraq we found, because the wind blew the sand away, a number of huge fighter jets that we had no idea were there. Given that any international organization will have far less access to Syrian information than the US did it's kinda silly to believe that the Syrians can't keep some nerve gas around for a rainy day.

Low information voters will think that Obama "won" the day just as low information voters--who were pretty much everyone back in the day of the major media monopoly--back in the day thought that JFK won Cuba because they didn't know that JFK agreed to not liberate Cuba and agreed to withdraw US missiles from Turkey.

Syria; the no win option

Unfortunately Obama has painted the US into a corner.  Unlike Bush who got the support of the country before going into Iraq Obama issued his red line before anyone had a chance to decide if getting involved in another Middle East morass was a great idea.

The essential problem is that in there are currently two likely choices in the Middle East; vicious dictators who protect minorities and Islamic fundamentalists who oppress everyone and kill off minorities.  Egypt may turn out to be a third option, a benevolent plutocracy, but they will get there on their own without need for American military intervention.

If we support Assad we can help ensure there will be no genocide directed against Christians but then we're effectively supporting his mass murder of dissenting civilians who just want to be free.

If we support the rebels we can help end Assad's oppression but from what we can see the Islamic nuts will be able to wage war against Christians. 

If Obama had acted 2 years ago, instead of praising Assad, when the rebels were mostly good Muslims who had no problem with a multi-religious society things would have been different.

But now there is no good reason for us to intervene in Syria to help decide who wins.

The only rationale for any sort of limited strike is to teach governments that they can't use nerve gas on their people but the reality is that Assad has killed a lot more innocent civilians with conventional weapons than with nerve gas so any strike would be unlikely to stop the real problems of governments killing their own people.

I don't believe we ever need to get the worlds approval to employ military force when we're in the right, say liberating Greneda, no amount of world approval can make a military intervention that does not accomplish anything beneficial for either the USA or the people of the country we intervene in a good thing.

But if we don't follow through on Obama's commitment then our enemies will doubt our will; Clinton's running out on Somalia convinced Ossama that he could attack the US with impunity.

The good news is that no one is afraid of Obama nor does anyone think he'll do anything militarily in response to foreign aggression so the US can do the right thing, not attack Syria, comforted by the knowledge that Obama has already ensured that the enemies we should be scaring already know that Obama's America will always look for compromise.

In the playground that is the world the bullies already know Obama will give up his lunch money without a fight.

Why amnesty?

When someone breaks into your house and demands you serve him the natural response is to throw the churl out. Yet many in America today say we should in fact pay the bills for the illegals who have broken into our house.

We're told that these millions of unskilled workers who can often not even speak English will, somehow, help the country.

If that were so then why not ship them all back home where they can help their own countries?

Even better if American really needs 10 to 30 million people who lack skills--and the fact that liberals believe this may explain why liberals don't care that the public school system is failing miserably in providing our children with useful skills--why not ship out the criminals who are illegally in the US and allow millions of unskilled, but at least honest, foreigners in?

I mean if we really benefit from adding millions of people who are likely to take more than they produce--even though many will pull their own weight--why not at least reward honest people not those who feel free to ignore the law so long as they benefit from it?