Father Arrested at Common Core Meeting

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/20/is-this-america-parent-manhandled-arrested-while-speaking-out-against-common-core-at-public-forum/

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-co-common-core-arrest-20130920,0,7127220.story

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/09/20/parents-you-need-to-question-these-people-shock-video-of-dad-arrested-at-school-meeting-after-challenging-common-core/

Robert Small at this point is still a voice crying out in the wilderness.


"A parent in Towson, Md., was arrested Thursday night at a public forum after vocally expressing his concerns about the Baltimore County School District’s plan to use Common Core standards in its curriculum.

Robert Small, a concerned father, was forcefully removed from the meeting by a police officer after he interrupted Baltimore County Schools Superintendent Dallas Dance during the question-and-answer portion of the forum.

The meeting apparently didn’t allow parents to stand up and ask questions or comment. Parents and other attendants were instead asked to write their questions on a piece of paper and officials would read them.

However, Small began speaking out against the district’s use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave. “Let’s go!” he said sternly.
When Small didn’t immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cop’s use of force.

“Don’t stand for this,” the father said as he was dragged out. “You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?”......"

Although he appears to have made no effort to push or strike anyone, Mr. Small was charged with assaulting a police officer when he was grabbed by the security guard who was an off-duty police officer and forced to leave the room (Video in the link on The Blaze).

"Despite some opposition from parents, the Maryland State Department of Education reportedly plans to go forward with its implementation of Common Core standards, joining 45 other states and Washington, D.C., in adopting the standards for the first time this year.

“Look, I am being manhandled and shut down because I asked inconvenient questions,” Small told the Baltimore Sun after the incident. “Why won’t they allow an open forum where there can be a debate? We are told to sit there and be lectured to about how great common core is.


The Common Core Curriculum is the new standard  for American schools that has been so thoroughly pushed that, as of now, 45 US states have signed on to the program.

To save space, I will refrain from going into detail on the Common Core. Credible information on the program is readily accessible via Internet searches. In short, the Common Core is the principle means by which the youth of the United States will be both subjected to a lower grade of education than American students of the past two decades (unbelievable but true), and fully brainwashed to hold to an anti-Western/US and pro-Left/Islam mindset. It is rife with highly sexualized content, including sexual assaults sickeningly being portrayed as something other than violent  crimes. Its history material has content that paints the US - from its inception, as being just plain wrong from the beginning. Islam is pushed as a force of peace, tolerance, and enlightenment.

The average American parent is unfortunately weak in spirit and will acquiesce to these without a fight. What they will object to, however, is the horrific lowering of standards for literacy, science, and mathematics central to the Common Core. One requirement of Common Core is that even older students use informational pamphlets, such as those made by government agencies, in class for reading material. These are written in an - at best, fifth grade reading level. Mr. Small nailed it when he shouted that this program is setting up the student for a a ticket to a Community College. Under this program, any youth  that does not get tracked for Honors-level classes from the beginning of  primary school will have learned an immeasurable amount less than a student in any other reasonably developed nation. In the case of US and World History, what he will have learned is so twisted as to have the effect of  outright lies. In American schools, the US involvement in the Philippine Insurrection is already being described as an act of genocide even though US actions did not meet any of the criteria specified by the UN's definition of that crime.

This movement has been going on for a long time. The Common Core is only codifying this trend and guaranteeing that the quality of education will go even lower and remain there. High School Spanish students (I am fortunate that we were able to put my youngest through Catholic high school) are already often taught next to zero about that language. When my son was talking about this with his cousin who attends the high school in our municipality, I was shocked to overhear how little he knows. In  a move that effectively told the students that they would learn nothing in his class, his teacher even made a comment at the start of the year to the effect that the only way to learn a language is to live in the nation in which that language is spoken. I provided examples from my Sophomore year (such as verb conjugations in the imperfect and preterite) to him in an effort see if he is learning what I learned in Spanish II. The poor child just shook his head and replied that the teacher had not even mentioned a word of these. He then added that they watch Spanish videos while the teacher sits at his computer. What this teacher does is have the students regurgitate a few words and short phrases of Spanish and leaves it at that.

What we are witnessing is the full blooming of the intentions of John Dewey, an early American Progressive who was as enamored with the educational system of the USSR as he was with the thought of the subjugation of the People to Socialism. While the writer in the link*, Bruce Price, gives Dewey far more credit than I would (Price seems to hold that Dewey may have been merely mistaken), he nonetheless provides the best through yet short summary of the work of the Father of the Decline of American Education. Any parent, would-be parent, or American simply concerned about his nation should read about Dewey and the "educators" who followed in his footsteps.

* http://improve-education.org/id42.html

Have your children had to memorize "sight words'? If so, then you can thank others associated with John Dewey:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/reading_the_contempt_of_socialists.html

"....In 1911, G. Stanley Hall, one of John Dewey's mentors, went so far as to extol illiteracy: "It is possible, despite the stigma our bepedagogued age puts upon this disability, for those who are under it not only to lead a useful, happy, virtuous life, but to be really well-educated in many other ways....."

- and the story one one who fought back the best he could:

http://improve-education.org/id29.html


Robert Small is one man and he cannot do it alone. He needs us. Having come to the belief that putting out fires is a waste of time, I have come to avoid fighting each single attack by the Left and concentrate on looking and calling for big changes for the future. In this case I make an exception. The Common Core must be rolled back and now. Please take the time to learn about it and take action. We need a movement of the People, and we need it now.

Socialism No Longer Being Hidden But Proclaimed and Celebrated

In the 1990's most of us were incredulous when the now-repaired Hugo Chavez made clear his intentions to bring Socialism to Venezuela. With the collapse of the Soviet Union a recent memory, China at least having given up most Marxist principles for her economy long before, and the rest of the Marxist economies in tatters, Westerners (myself included) could not bring themselves to believe that such a claim would invite anything but ridicule.

What we had not bargained on was the staying power of Leftist thought and the continued success - even in the face of all the evidence of a failed idea, of the Western Socialists of Academia who kept churning out vacuous minds to the tune of tens of thousands each year; this while we basked in the delusion that we had won the Cold War.

Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has joined in with others who have sensed that our societal climate has changed to the point that words or terms such as "Left", "Socialism", "Social Engineering" are no longer apt to cause any ripples. Confident in their accurate assessment of an "all is well" mindset of most Americans, they rightly see no need to hide their agenda. Instead of framing their arguments to make them look moderate, they proclaim their goals from the rooftops:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/20/rep-alan-grayson-praises-the-creation-of-stealth-socialism-in-america/

"Speaking about the Federal Reserve’s rapidly-growing balance sheet, Grayson remarked:

"...We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result."

Again, the human, Hydra-like version of the Beast no longer feels the need to hide it's intentions. They want full-blown Socialism of the Western variant - a style far more insidious, filthy and ugly than the old Communism that we have been taught was worse than that which is being brought upon us. The People are still largely ignoring this threat.

The People have one last chance to avert a disaster in the near future - throw their support behind Mark Levin's proposed Article V conventions. If this does not occur, the breakup of the United States will be our only option. Admit that the Left should have a chance do do things their way and let them have their half of the country to run into the ground. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/19/mark-levin-glenn-beck-discuss-re-establishing-the-constitution-in-first-ever-conversation/

The following excerpts are from The Blaze (link above). The link below is for Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments - Restoring the American Republic. This is the book to which Levin refers in the interview, where he outlines both the current state of the US, and the history of,  reasons for, and need of a coordinated movement for a Constitutional Convention called for and held by, the States under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States. *(more at bottom)

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-liberty-amendments-mark-r-levin/1115985374?ean=9781451606270

“We live what I call a post-constitutional period,” Levin began. “You’re well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement — we have to accept the fact that they won…and this utopian statism and constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don’t coexist. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking.”.........

Levin continued: “The framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution, should the federal government become oppressive…Two days before the end of at that convention in Philadelphia, [George Mason] stood up and he said, ‘Look, what if Congress becomes oppressive? What if this new government becomes oppressive? Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix itself.’”

“And so he insisted that the states have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states, still requiring three-fourths ratification,” Levin explained. “And so we can talk about the culture, and you do and I do, and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we’re talking about the Constitution, people say, ‘I thought Levin revered the Constitution, now you want to change it?’ No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.”......
“The thing is, the reason the left has never gone through this approach, never, and the reason they would fight this approach, is they are getting damn near everything they want top-down,” he said. “They’re not going to want to work bottom-up. Let’s keep something in mind — there are tens of millions of us who still love this country. Who still love the Constitution. Who still revere our heritage. And we’re looking for ways to deal with this. And we can keep beating our heads against the wall, ‘Elect more Republicans!’ Well, we had six years of Bush and the House and Senate and other than Obama, it was the profligate out-of-control period in [ recent ] federal history.”

Beck agreed that it is time to stop listening to the GOP and supporting a party that may be a “bigger nightmare” than the Democrats.

And Levin said that’s precisely why the plan set out by the founders is “the recourse.”

“It by passes Congress. It by passes the GOP establishment. It bypasses the Supreme Court, the president, the bureaucracy,” he said. “This is completely bottom up. The people working with state delegates and state senators, state legislatures.”

Countries are not “guaranteed perpetual existence,” he reminded. So when people ask what can they do, he goes back and looks at our founding documents, and “even before then.”

“The framers, even though they set up this magnificent Constitution, they were concerned that it would be breached. If you don’t have people of virtue in these positions then you have what? You have tyranny,”.........."

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/07/article-v-conventions-proposed-some.html

"Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Mr. Levin rightfully notes that, two-thirds of the states make this move, and the proposed amendment(s) are passed by three quarters of the states, then Congress, The Supreme Court, and and President would literally be powerless to prevent them from being added to our Constitution and by extension becoming the Law of of the land.

In the Western Free Press link, Levin speaks in an embedded video. He stresses that George Mason, (Note that Mason was by no means a supporter of the Constitution when it was a new and unratified document as he feared its potential for abuse), was indeed a strong supporter of this alternative means by which the states could work together to restrain or correct a national government (Ours is only Federal in name - credit Tocqueville for that observation) and take steps to put the nation back on the right path.....

Youth Assailed by False Interpretation of Second Amendment

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/18/School-Textbook-Changes-Constitution

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/wait-until-you-see-how-a-high-school-textbook-summarizes-the-rights-granted-in-the-second-amendment/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/publisher-of-ap-history-book-containing-questionable-second-amendment-summary-has-direct-ties-to-common-core-and-theres-more/

When the Left lost in the two key Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v.Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, both of which affirmed the actual meaning of the second amendment, they promptly went to work to create a generation of Americans who have no idea of what that amendment means.

The idea is of course plainly insidious but effective; ignore both the words of amendment itself and the landmark court cases and pretend that it only says what you want it so say. In time, Americans (committed researchers, historians, and lawyers excepting) will have no knowledge of a crucial right of theirs at all and will react to citations of those two cases as if the speaker is using a different language .

High schools across the United States are issuing textbooks that falsely assert that the second amendment only applies to the state militia. The interpretations of the Supreme Court are treated as if they do not exist.

-From The Blaze but also in Breitbart:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,” the definition in the book, “United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,” which acts as a study guide for the Advanced Placement U.S. history test, reads.

  
I hold the the People cannot run around putting out these fires. We may well need to effect a break between the two versions of the United States. The Left will not stop until they have polluted the hearts and minds of enough of us to provide support for a new Constitutional Convention, one that will have the result of a completely transformed United States

Marl Levin has called for Article V Conventions to try to affect needed changes before our electorate has not been utterly ruined. He makes a lot of sense - if we are not willing to make changes to protect our freedoms and reign in the Left now, our grandchildren will be overwhelmed with an electorate that has been turned into a permanent vegetative and sheeplike state and will support the end of our Republic.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/19/mark-levin-glenn-beck-discuss-re-establishing-the-constitution-in-first-ever-conversation/

I personally believe that such a convention is our last hope to save the Republic. It must be done before a full split of the nation is needed to avert the scenario that those who come after us will have to face.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/07/article-v-conventions-proposed-some.html


-From previous posts on the purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-ban-fears-cause-firearms-purchase.html

'".......The Left spent decades telling us that the second amendment, contrary to what is says, provides only for the possession of firearms for State Militias, a term which has come in Newspeak to be restricted to the National Guard.

I still can't believe how easy it is to find old articles with the internet. I recalled an article in Parade magazine* from the 80's in which Chief Justice Warren Burger, knowing fully well what the second amendment meant, instead pimped his influence to tell us that the "people" indicated the militia. Now, this would be partially true as the militia, by the meaning of the word at the time that the amendment was written (The concept is simple yet ignored today- Legislative Intent), meant all able-bodied males. Burger insidiously decided to make a play on words and apply the modern meaning militia to change the meaning of the amendment.

*http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Burger was featured on the front cover of the magazine holding a lever-action rifle that, if my memory serves me correctly, was a Winchester Model 94. (Sorry the above link does not have the photo)

This was a dirty deed. The US Supreme Court and its individual justices have, until fairly recently, refrained from providing their opinion on laws unless a specific case is brought before them. (Sorry, I forget the name of this practice). Burger's snake-like move had the effect that he wanted. As a result of this, many people in the US would, erroneously, claim that the second amendment has been interpreted to mean the Militia (The modern meaning and contrary to the law) and that the Court had effectively ruled that the people had no such right. 

In reality, the Court had never ruled on this issue until District of Columbia v.Heller in 2008. There, faced with a literal mountain* of evidence proving that those who wrote the amendment had the people in mind, the Court had no option but to rule in favor of the right to own firearms. 

Even so, the stage had been set for the collapse of the Court even at that time. Four Justices chose to ignore the evidence. The 5-4 ruling was narrow enough to make one shudder. 

*Here are just two of the Amicus Curiae briefs that provided a Noahesque flood of evidence that the Legislative Intent of the amendment included the people:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_cato.pdf

With Obama being able to make 1-3 possible appointments in his second term, a reversal ofHeller, though. is not out of the question."

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/conn-school-material-no-right-to.html

".....A father in Connecticut was shocked to find that the reference material with which his kid was being taught was fraught with somewhat clever twists of the truth and outright lies concerning the right to privately owned firearms.

-Firstly, by now nothing that the Left does, especially when it comes to the malleable and impressionable minds of children, should shock anyone.

“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” it purportedly reads. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.”


Note that the writer(s) cleverly utilized the fact that in fact some individuals, such as those convicted of crimes, cannot own firearms. They also played with the fact that laws that honestly regulated ownership of firearm's have been upheld. Both of these are examples of lying by employing facts; they are clearly presented in manner that would lead the reader to believe that the courts have not upheld the second amendment (Heller v. District of Columbia, McDonald v. Chicago). They also have lied concerning the facts as most, but not every law, that was made with the purpose of regulating firearms has been upheld.


"The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.

“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”

According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.' "

These are the more patently false and insidious charges. As Washington DC is not a state, the Left had high hopes that McDonald v. Chicago would be decided in their favor. Their hopes were dashed  as the Court did absolutely apply the second amendment to the states, but this did not stop the writers from falsely claiming that it did not. Heller also put to rest the claim that no honest person ever believed; that the National Guard is the only criteria specified in the second amendment. The people are noted specifically in the amendment, and the literal mountain of evidence that was provided in amicus curiae briefs compelled the honest justices to admit that the writers never intended to restrict gun ownership to an official militia. It must also be noted that, at that time, the militia meant every male 15-16 of years or older, so the National Guard does not apply here, either."

Swiss Army Service Challenged

http://rt.com/news/swiss-army-abolition-referendum-011/

This referendum does not appear likely to succeed on this turn, but again we see the handwriting on the wall. The influence of Cultural Marxism*, the fear that the EU has of a traditionally fiercely independent people, and the concern that a  whole bunch of "assault weapons" in the hands of well-trained private citizens could put up a very good fight to maintain their freedom have come together to threaten a hallowed and fully necessary intuition:

"On Sunday, the Swiss are voting on a proposal to abolish military conscription in favor of a voluntary army. The country with no clear foes and a long tradition of neutrality could find better ways of spending money than playing at war, proponents say.

Switzerland, once a proud supplier of mercenaries for numerous wars in Europe, has maintained a policy of armed neutrality for the last five centuries. It isn’t a member of any defense pacts and wasn’t even member of the United Nations until 2002. But it has an army of 150,000, the size of Austria’s, Belgium’s, Norway’s, Finland’s and Sweden’s armies combined.

Under Swiss law, all able-bodied males must take part in compulsory military service between the ages of 18 and 34. This comprises 18 to 21 weeks of basic training and further yearly refresher courses lasting 19 days. Senior officers may have to serve up to the age of 50 and spend more than twice as much time on army duty than ordinary recruits........

The military is also the cornerstone of the Swiss militia, which has a role similar to the National Guard in the US. Those in the army help civilian authorities and respond to natural disasters and other major events. Many continue helping society as volunteers after retiring from the service by joining the fire service, participating in local politics. or serving other public duties.

However, there are plenty who see [Read maliciously label] military traditions as an expensive anachronism, which is no longer necessary. The pacifist Group for Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) has gathered the 100,000 signatures necessary to put their abolition proposal to a national referendum..........."

Here we see what decades of Leftist propaganda will do to a people - get them to think poorly of a key institution and render their nation weaker, convince them to shirk national service, and have them prefer the thought of being controlled rather than checking the power of the state to control the People:

"GSoA, which has been campaigning against obligatory army service since 1982, argues that the country located in the heart of Europe doesn’t need big military firepower to protect itself and that a purely voluntary force would suffice. It criticizes conscription, which excludes Swiss women and disrupts study and work for men, costing an estimated $4.3 billion to the economy annually.

"Not everyone has time to play war," declares the GSoA campaign poster.........."

As the nation loses her older citizens, the vote tallies will change in subsequent referendums.

Sunday’s vote is not expected to go in favor of the GSoA. A survey by Swiss television in August revealed that 40 per cent of respondents would reject the initiative, with another 17 per cent leaning that way. The support for the military is particularly strong in the older generations, with 68 per cent of those over 65 opposing the initiative. Less than a third of Swiss people support the proposal.

“Switzerland needs an army,” says Jakob Büchler of the Christian Democrat Party (CVP), a member of the National Council, which rejected the initiative as cited by The Local. “We are a small country, we are a neutral country, and we are a country that isn’t in any defense alliances. We have to therefore organize our own defense and security ourselves, and that’s why we need an army.”

Opponents of the initiative fear that there won’t be enough volunteers for military service and Switzerland would then have to start a costly change to a professional army......"

The Socialist behemoth that is the EU would certainly want the Swiss Army turned into an instrument of a state that can be influenced rather than a force made up of the People that can withstand an eventual sovereignty-destroying absorption into the EU . The claims in the article that the current system it too expensive do not hold water - Switzerland is not a poor nation by any means, and professional armies always wind up being very expensive in the end. Training the entire People to function as an effective reserve force is a very cheap means of providing a solid defense. 

The People who banded together to push out the Hapsburgs and somehow maintain a small but independent nation in the middle of a Europe that was in the business of consolidation - and later deterred Hitler from invading, must be rolling over in their graves.

-From a previous post:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/10/switzerland-preparing-to-defend-borders.html

"The Swiss are not taking for granted that the rest of Europe, particularly the southern nations, will be able to make it through the financial crisis without some sort of a collapse.

The Left is strong on the assertion that "anyone has a right to live anywhere he or she chooses". Websites with names such as *"Abolish Foreignness" join in with the same people who seek to ** abolish grades in an attempt to slowly erode the abilities and prosperity of the people of Western Nations. Not that this is their stated intent, indeed they claim that everyone will benefit equally from the reduction of learning and the packing of developed nations with enough people to completely change the electorate. Let's not forget the necessary task of drastically reducing the wealth of a nation and its people that can only be accomplished by mass and unchecked immigration.

*http://www.abolishforeignness.org/

http://www.joebower.org/p/abolishing-grading.html

The Swiss army is no joke. They place a tremendous emphasis on individual marksmanship, and the soldiers can respond to predetermined or makeshift locations from their homes as their issued weapons/individual equipment are kept at their homes.

An anecdote from the late 19th century will serve to illustrate the Swiss mindset. A German general from the unified Germany created by Bismark was in Switzerland to review their military training. At one point, the German asks how many soldiers the Swiss General could deploy in the event of a war.

The Swiss general says he can field a million men.
The German says, “What if we invade with 5 million men?”
The Swiss general laconically responds, “All my men will fire five shots and then go home.”

The Swiss are rightly concerned that, in the event of an economic collapse and the ensuing flight of people out of the bankrupt and chaos-ridden nations, the prosperity of Switzerland will make them a target for refugees and criminal elements.

In our era in which defending national sovereignty is verboten, I commend the Swiss not only for being prepared, but by making it clear that others know that they recognize the threat and will not be caught with their pants down"

*Cultural Marxism is a key component of Western Socialists. To prepare the People of the West for Marxism, the culture, sense of ethnic/national identity, love of country, role of the family, and importance of Christianity and Judaism had to be undermined by relentless propaganda, mostly in the  in the schools and the media.

http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

Obama Will Aid anti-US Terror Groups

Navy Yard shooting brief:

Well, the Left and their sheep allies shot their bolt again, but to no avail. Dashing their hopes of another reason to ban semiautomatic rifles (and whatever else on their wish list), was the revelation that the shooter did not bring an AR-15 or other type of magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle. There can no longer be any doubt about what they want - their goal is to restrict the People from anything anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns and maybe a few firearms popular for target shooting. Just as in the UK, the attack on these will follow shortly after.

Also, it appears that the Navy Yard had private contractors for base security. Great, now we have mercenaries in addition to militarized cops controlling our troops and keeping them locked up, unarmed, and unable to help us.

It is a sad irony that the one great fear of many of our Founding Fathers - the standing army, is now seen by many American citizens as our only hope against a totalitarian  takeover of the US.

 I don't like the idea of such a dangerous precedent -  Sulla's march into Rome (among other things of course) spelled the end of the Rule of Law in the Roman Republic, but even that last hope is fast being negated as a possibility. Although he knew that the would-be participants had legitimate grievances Washington nipped the Newburg Conspiracy in the bud because he foresaw the direction such a move could take us. A decisive move by DHS and other attached and willing law enforcement personnel (maybe also private contractors) could well lockdown a base, its personnel, and critical equipment in the blink of an eye.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main post:

Hat tip to Info Wars and The Blaze.

This is sickening.

Smarting from his defeat and at the hands of just about the entire world - with Russia of particular note, Obama has now lifted the legal restrictions on proving arms to rebels groups that would otherwise be illegible for aid due to their terrorist activities. He will now no longer maintain the charade of "vetting" Syrian rebel groups to direct weapons to "moderate" groups. The spiteful child has decided that he is going "whole hog" and will provide arms and other aid to any group that fights against the Syrian government.

Let's be clear - the government of the United States will now arm Al-Quaeda and Al-Nusra types.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

http://www.infowars.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."....."

Make no mistake - to topple the Syrian government, Obama will not mask his intentions behind even the most sheer of veils; we will send weapons to groups that would-  tomorrow morning, use them against the US if they did not have something else going on at the moment.  

We are now looking at a situation that Glenn Beck noted falls within the definition of Treason as specified  in the Constitution of the United States. Beck tempers his words and carefully suggests the possibility but I say that it is a done deal that he crossed the line:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/glenn-beck-dissects-move-by-obama-on-syria-that-he-says-may-amount-to-treason/

“Just so we are all clear on this, let me read article 3, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution about treason,” Beck said. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

[Note that the definition does not provide exemptions for supporting our enemies if they also happen to be doing things of which the President approves]    

[Referring to past suggestions of possible Treasonous acts of Obama] "...........“But by him waiving this law, he has admitted that he knows he is giving aid and comfort to a global terrorist organization, because there’s no other reason to waive that law!”

“This president, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner, and anyone else who stands for giving aid and comfort, military support to Al Qaeda in Syria, should be impeached,” Beck declared. “Notice there’s Republicans and Democrats, so it’s clearly not about party.”.......

Beck noted that the president can waive the law and engage in military action if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was determined to be an immediate threat to the United States — but the president made it very clear that he is not in an interview with CNN...."

We must note that the Framers of our Constitution were very careful in how they worded the meaning of the charge of Treason. In England, there had been a history of employing that charge for actions that would stretch the word treason to mean far more than that which we would expect. The Framers would have none of that - they made sure that Treason was clearly defined so that only knowingly-done acts, such as those which would clearly cause grievous harm to the United States and.or its People, could bring that charge.

My head is spinning along with the turning of my stomach. Only is our current society could even the most Manchurian of candidates even give this move a second thought; the expected outcry from the people would be enough to make one forget the entire thing. the In decades past, the very attempt to make such a move would only be done with the utmost of secrecy. Obama senses that the People have grown so fearful of losing what they have that he can publicly state his intentions to commit a clearly treasonous  act.

By this act, Obama will again risk getting the US involved with a war with nations such as Russia. Unless he decides to let Obama demonstrate his willingness to bring harm to the nation that he "leads", Putin understandably will not sit by idly while the Syrian government is beset by rebels groups that have been armed to the teeth without even the formality of first being asked if they are nice guys.

I am quite finished with mere calls for action. The People must cry out that this must be stopped and that at least preliminary steps be taken to follow the procedures for Impeachment as outlined in the Constitution. 

As citizens, we don't have the right to ignore this act or restrict our actions to complaints to our elected officials, 

We are obligated to legally alter or abolish what has become an inherently illegal presidency. 

Years from now, young people will ask their elders what they did in response to what is being done to our country. I don't plan to tell them that I just went on with my life and did nothing.

Military Personnel Being Disarmed

Note- the terms "Base" and "Post"(not to be confused with a blog post) Naval and Army respectively, should be considered interchangeable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shooting at the Washington DC Navy Yard brought yet another nagging thought of mine back to the fore.

The national (Our structure is actually not Federal and never was) government has been steadily pushing our military into a position of impotence (Unless it is being unleashed on a foreign power of course). In addition to being subjected to the agendas of radical gays and feminists, and atheists, our armed forces have been placed - to a great degree, under the control of civilian law enforcement authorities. When I was on active duty in the Marine Corps in the late 1980's, the only two civilian law enforcement agencies of which I knew was the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) and the Department of Defense (DOD)Police . This former handled criminal matters that warranted investigations of criminal cases that went past the levels normally handled my military law enforcement and the latter seemed to be tasked with base security where there was no military police unit of appreciable size. At the time, I only saw DOD police on Army posts Even then, I was not pleased with this arrangement; the US military has always had a multi-level system of  well-trained and qualified members that policed the ranks more than well enough. At the time, though, I contented myself with the notion that these civilians were useful for matters that may include civilians that may have been involved with crimes on, or otherwise associated with, military bases.

Since I have not followed the agency since I left the Marines, I cannot say for certain how much their mission has changed, but the   NIS of today appears to have their hands in all sorts of operations:

http://www.ncis.navy.mil/Pages/publicdefault.aspx

After my honorable discharge and subsequent time in the Army national Guard in the early 1990's (The Clinton era*), I began to notice, particularly on Army posts, the increase in the amount of DOD police. It was then that I began to wonder what was being done with the military police units; it was if (In flora and fauna terms) they were disappearing like a native species being displaced by a new invasive species.

[Revision - * I picked up a good piece today that fills in some holes. The effects were felt and seen during the Clinton era, but the machine had been set in motion by the first President Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush). I was not a big fan of him either. The concern that our military is being set up for a possible preemptive lockdown of personnel and equipment critical to an operation to protect the People from a rogue national government is still just as legitimate.]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

Today, the military police of out military has been relegated to, at best, a secondary status. In the Fort Hood Terrorist (Obama's "workplace violence)" attack by Major Nadal Hasan, it was a DOD police officer who first returned fire - I don't know of military police had been completely removed from the post, severely reduced in strength, or had been restricted from responding to a violent crime, but again my hackles were raised - something was wrong.

The details about who actually shot and killed the shooter, Aaron Alexis, n Washington DC today, are still murky. All I have been able to gather is that he was killed by police. I don't know if these were Washington DC Metropolitan, DOD, or Military Police, but what is clear is this:

The Navy Yard, like all US military bases, is a gun free zone (Does anyone notice that shooters like gun free zones for slaughters?) , non-police military personnel are strictly prohibited from being armed, and no military police personnel appear to have been present. Armed response may have been only from civilian police and, after orders were approved, the Marine Corps barracks personnel from nearby Headquarters Marine Corps.

Today I thought about another piece of the puzzle of the big picture. This the neutering of our military and its personnel in the face of an ever-growing threat of national and other police that operate under the umbrella (including Task Forces) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If our military is not actively engaged in combat operations (away from home), it can now barely do anything to protect its own personnel and others on a military base.

I  have little doubt that this is no accident - the military is being rendered utterly unable to protect the People in the event that the Hydra that is DHS and its attached agencies/task forces are used to put down an uprising (even a peaceful one like the beginning of Obama's celebrated :Arab Spring") of the People against a government that is unrecognizable to one who adheres to our Constitution.

I have been on active and reserve military duty and am a retired law enforcement officer. I can assure you that military personnel consider themselves more like the People than do many cops. The latter are much more likely to have an "us against them" mindset than members of our military.

Excerpts from a previous post:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/retired-marine-colonel-on.html

The militarization of police, at all levels of government, in the United States is certainly an issue of great concern. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 effectively prohibited US military personnel from being employed to enforce criminal/civil law within the nation. Federal troops can be deployed in situations in which a state of emergency has been  declared, such as with the Los Angeles riots of 1992, but these are to be used in a support status and coordinated with civil authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Law enforcement personnel, including those under the supervision pf the Department of Homeland Security (a body seemingly growing in scope and authority by the day), are in contrast specifically charged with the task of enforcing the Law. Historically, these agencies were not well-equipped to handle situations such as barricaded suspects. Enter the SWAT team; the officers units had training and equipment that would enable them to do what the officer on standard patrol duty could not.

After being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and being hired by a local law enforcement agency, I served on my agency's SWAT team from the early to late 90's. During that period, I noted that our equipment, training, and structure was becoming quite militarized. We also began to acquire equipment and training from the Federal government. A change in mindset accompanied this development. Officers who had never served in the military started to labor under the impression that their level of training not only approached* (Which was not even close) but surpassed that of actual military personnel. One in particular had big plans - he had designs to make his unit "....better than the SEALS". That claim left me utterly speechless. I mean, he just no clue whatsoever.

The response to the Columbine slaughter exemplified both the drawbacks of overt militarization of our cops and the fact that cops simply do not think like soldiers do. Waiting for backup and the arrival of sufficient numbers if SWAT personnel to conduct a textbook SWAT  operation, the responding patrol and later SWAT officers waited - for a very long time, while students were being killed and. Once enough arrived to do things "by the book", they crept through the school ever-so-slowly while severely injured students went without medical attention. To them, every nook and cranny needed to be cleared before the unit moved to the next room or hallway.

Militarily personnel are trained with a Mission First -Troops Second mentality, cops are not. An infantry unit, if given the order, will attempt to accomplish the mission with the troops and and equipment available at the time. They will move through hostile forces if need be. Police dogma does not even come close to this. 

SWAT teams do not have the same level of training as do military personnel, but they think that they are actually more highly trained, and that its frightening.

Also frightening is the fact that, as the Colonel noted, police agencies are not only acquiring armored vehicles and other types of equipment that one would expect to see at a military base, it is also standardized, often down to the same exact model. With the streamlining of Emergency Incident Response procedures and Mutual Aid agreements, it is guaranteed that officers can be detached and and reassigned to units comprised of officers from other agencies quite seamlessly. In a scenario in which the People are being targeted for standing  up for their rights, officers would not even have the advantage of working with officers with whom they are familiar, something which often provides a natural "braking mechanism" when given orders that are problematic. Old friends have ways of letting their partners know that they see something wrong without saying a word - a good start if officers need to decide on their own to "stand down".

When equipment is issued or subsidized at state or national level, local agencies are obligated by contract to dispatch that equipment, along with trained officers, to large-scale events. These are referred to as "Task Forces". Several  cops from your town or county could be away for days or weeks at a time. Following September 11th, officers from across the nation were assigned to and received training for a rapid reaction force, the name of which escapes me at the moment, for deployment to emergencies anywhere in the state or nation. Jurisdictional authority would be provided simply for "swearing in" the responding offers to give them powers of arrest in that state. They were used in events such as Katrina, but an "emergency" is subject to interpretation, and your officers could well be two or more thousand miles away dealing with a body of Americans who are standing up for their rights.

The Colonel was correct in noting that the Federal Government is effectively creating an army that is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act, which brings me to the most frightening part:

In order for military units to go into action, be it to destroy an opposing force, suppress a movement of the People, or prevent a necessary movement of the People from being suppressed, a tremendous amount of steps need to be followed. Orders must be given to all combat and support units. This includes issuing of operation orders, weapons, transportation, equipment, fuel and other necessities. A military unit, even if its command staff and troops know that something is dreadfully wrong and that action must be taken, is almost powerless to act if an order has not been sent via the chain of command. Virtually an entire battalion of staff officers has to be of the same mind in order for such an act to have a chance of happening. A smaller unit attempting such a move will see its officers relieved of command and detained and the troops confined to barracks - prohibited of course from any contact outside of the base or post.

In a similar scenario involving the dispatch of police forces, it is far easier. Police agencies have their equipment on hand, and their operational procedures are much more conducive to an immediate deployment at the word of a Chief or other superior officer. Federal and State agencies are massive in size and have sufficient assets to operate for weeks. The mind-boggling amount of ammunition that has been purchased and stored across the nation by the Department of Homeland Security allows for an almost unlimited supply. Add the call for to-be-attached officers from local agencies with their issued equipment, and the new army, which takes its orders from Civil authorities, is a tool that can be wielded in an unchecked  manner against the People. When the cops are told that the targets are in violation of the Law, their minds are geared towards making arrests. They also have not been educated to appreciate their mission to protect the People, Constitution, and the nation as have military personnel. I was in both worlds, and I can assure you that the mindset is as different as can be.

Islam Remark Brings Punishment to County Employee

In the Western variant of Socialism, saying the prohibited things will not result in a night visit by the secret police to appear in a kangaroo court and sentenced to death of a labor camp, but the chilling Orwellian effects are nonetheless quite apparent.

You will be ostracized, financially ruined, and/or subject to the media-fueled anger of the mob.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/14/county-employee-faces-discipline-for-post-critical-of-islam-he-made-on-his-private-facebook-page/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/muslim-groups-demands-public-records-after-county-/nZwpQ/

One thing to note is that using social media while at work ( lunch and breaks excepting) , particularly if the media is being accused on employer-owned computers (not the case with this employee), is not the most prudent of decisions. For the record, I am not sure if the employee did this during work hours or after.

The preceding was just unsolicited advice.

-From The Blaze:

"A Florida public servant may be disciplined for posting a message critical of Islam on his personal Facebook page, a county official said this week.

Palm Beach County Administrator Bob Weisman said the county is still deciding whether or not to discipline public information officer John Jamason for a 9/11 Facebook post skewering Islam,according to the Palm Beach Post."

This is what brought on the call for disciplinary action - a remark clarifying that to truly practice Islam is to accept violence and hatred. 

“Never forget. There is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is radical. There may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others. The Quran is a book that preaches hate,” the message said, according to WPTV.

The County Administrator was clear that, if the employee had not been tenured and by extension not protected by civil service-type laws, he would have been terminated from his employment without benefit of a set process for matters of discipline. In other words, if he had been a new-hire or in a non-protected position he would have been fired arbitrarily; no hearing, no graduated levels of punishment or reprimands, just sent packing due to exercising his rights of free speech. From the administrator's words I understand this to mean that having the gall to speak accurately about Islam (gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc, presumably included) will bring trouble at work even if it is done on your own time in your own home.

"Weisman said that if Jamason were not a “merit system employee who is protected by State law from arbitrary termination” he may have been fired by now.

“If he was an at-will employee, for which I do have more discretion, I would be considering his termination today for the ignorance of his comments and that they are hurtful to part of our community,” Weisman told WPTV."

I have little doubt that Mr. Jamason will win any court case that follows an attempt to reprimand or disciplinary him an another manner, but the point is clear - if you say or write something that the Left has declared to be verboten, the powers that be will  - at the very least, go through the motions of charging you with a violation of the rules and regulations that govern the conduct of employees. You will have attorney fees, possibly be out of work for months, and sleepless nights. 

We steadily approaching the specter of the Hate Speech laws that gag our elder cousins in culture of Western Europe. There, the mere act of describing the realities of Islam or the details of Mohammed's life will bring - as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff* learned, the possibility of imprisonment and fines.

*http://english.savefreespeech.org/

For now, the Left will have to be content with a more grass-roots (but quite effective nonetheless) sort of oppression. If you speak or act in contradiction of that has been established by "consensus" as the correct way of thinking and acting, you will face the threat of a loss of your employment, (or business if you are self-employed), verbal abuse, vandalism to your home, and sometimes physical assaults. You will have some supporters, but they will assert that they cannot say what they believe do to the fear of experiencing that which befell you. You will be effectively alone. 

That is, unless the People begin to employ the traditional Western manner of thinking and worry more about the future of the grandchildren than their own fortunes. That's what caused people to leave the comfort and security of their ancestral lands and build (by hand) homes and farms in regions in which they were subject to privations and attacks by people who did not want them there. 

We need to start thinking like those who sold themselves into years of indenture servitude just for the chance to - once free of the terms of the contract, to get a freely-held piece of land to bequeath to their children.

The Siege of Vienna -1683 and Today

The space bar on my keyboard is giving me problems, which makes typing quite maddening. I will have to make this post short.


Hat tip to Gates of Vienna:

As a compulsive reader, particularly in all aspects of Western history, a certain event or date about which I had read on numerous occasions often suddenly strikes me as having real significance.

The place in time of the 1683 siege of Vienna (the 330th anniversary of the Christian victory was yesterday), envisioned and lead by by the Korprulu Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, was one that took a long time to penetrate my thick skull. About five years ago the relevance of the Islamic invasions with our problem with Islamic aggression today hit me like a hammer.

Previously, when contemplating modern-day Islamic aggression,  I had concentrated on the seizures of American shipping, successful demands for tribute (of European states also), and enslavement of American seamen followed by the Barbary Wars of the late 18th-early 19th centuries. That made sense as the US had been targeted due to her non-Islamic nature while in her infancy, but one day the year 1683 hit home-

-It was exactly one hundred years prior to the Treaty of Paris, the document that officially recognized the independence of the American republic from the United Kingdom.

One hundred years. That means that, when the news of the Treaty broke out, there would have been people alive whose fathers had read or heard accounts of the horde of  troops of Ottomans and tributary states coming close to plundering the capital of the Holy Roman (German) Empire.

- sitting well inside the borders of Western Europe.

The taking of the rest of modern-day Austria would not have been out of the question. The Ottomans had an immense and powerful army, but their continual advances were made practical by the augmentation of troops from Ottoman-ruled or vassal states (The siege force included elements as diverse as Crimean Mongols and Christian Moldavians). In addition to the Constantinople-like rape of the city and her people, future Ottoman armies would include components of former Hapsburg soldiers. France, who was complicit in the Ottoman attack (among other things, Hapsburg-held regions bordering France were being plucked away  while Hapsburg energies were being directed at the protection of  the Eastern front) would have found herself faced with an enemy far more destructive and rapacious than anything that a 18th century European state could dish out - this now much closer and with no appreciably strong  state to act as a buffer.

This was the third time that Austria was threatened, and the second time that Vienna herself was besieged.

The answer to the call for surrender or enslavement was clear - Vienna would fight.

The siege progressed, and until the main relief army of Poles and Germans arrived and caught the overconfident attackers off-guard, the walls of Vienna had been close to being breached.

To me, the heavily-armored winged Hussars (Their uniform included wooden-framed wings) led by Polish King Jan Sobieski are the focus of the relief army. Crashing into the now-fleeing Ottomans, they - along with their German allies, made short work of those who would carry Jihad into the heart of Western Europe.

The Korprulu Grand Vizier's fate? He - in Mafia style, was "sent for" and strangled for his botched mission.

The excerpts from the following post note the tragic irony that has befallen Vienna since that momentous day (as with other Western European cities) by the policies of her Socialist leaders. Referred to here as "red", Leftists and their so-called conservative opposition have knowingly allowed Turks to invade Europe again -this time without having to risk a single life.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/09/330-years-after-the-victory-over-the-turks/

"What the Turks lost at that time, the red city government has been returning to them a thousandfold for decades now. Vienna has roughly 1.7 million inhabitants; of these somewhat less than half are immigrants. Those of Turkish origin rank third in number behind the Germans and the Serbs and constitute about 10% of the migrants in Vienna. Nevertheless they are the ones that demand the most and arguably spread themselves around with the most audacity.

Vienna already has 45 mosques, and the ATIB Union, Association of Turkish-Islamic Union for Social and Cultural Cooperation in Austria, still does not have enough of them. The ATIB is directly under the control of Turkish authority for religious affairs [Directorate of Religious Affairs], from which they presumably receive their instructions...........

Politically Incorrect reader Robert Hubac has now let off steam in an open incendiary letter to the red Mayor Michael Häupl:

[…] My challenge rests on statements and explanations which I am able to base on facts. I received assistance with specialised knowledge about Islam from professionals in Austria, Europe and even overseas. My self-employment in the real estate sector assisted me in making assessments pertaining to real estate law, location issues etc., as well in the appraisal of influences which a large project of this kind has on the neighbourhood, with all its negative effects. […] Large platforms of this kind will not be off limits to hate preachers. That can be shown by examining other so-called Islamic cultural centres in Europe. There is also the fear that Muslims, who are living here by virtue of so much tolerance and support on the part of the authorities, will be encouraged to seek “more”, which, as shown by events in England’s Blackpool and Sweden’s Malmö, can reach the point where Sharia is introduced for specific areas. […] If the association becomes operative, that will amount to the acceptance of political and religious views and practices which are not in any way consistent with our conception of the world, the Geneva Convention on Human Rights or such matters of immorality as the degrading treatment of women, absence of free choice in religion, dress regulations, the genital mutilation of minors under unsterile conditions, cruelty to animals through halal slaughter and so on.
Should a stop not be put to the Islamisation project soon in Austria, Germany and the whole of Europe, then we mock the action of Sobieski, Karl von Lothringen, Prince Eugene and other victorious warriors against the Turkish and Islamic claim to world domination. And not least we violate the future of our children and grandchildren."

Indeed.

Revised:Assad Now Makes Demands - Amanpour Plays Drama Queen

Added 9/14/13 -Glenn Beck provided us with a glimpse of the outlook of Christiane Amanpour (Quoted below) The Link and text at bottom will help the reader make understand her motivations for supporting an attack on Syria
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/13/playing-with-us-assad-piles-on-demands-amid-chemical-weapons-talks/


I don't know if Bashar Assad accurately senses how much Obama is backpedaling after his clarion call for military strikes was dealt a serious blow or if the Syrian President is taking a terribly  risky roll of the dice.

"U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday he expects a soon-to-be-released investigative report to show chemical weapons were used last month in Syria -- though U.S. officials claim it will not assign blame. The predictions come after an emboldened Bashar Assad began upping his demands in talks over relinquishing the Syrian government's chemical weapons to international control......

The dynamic could change next week, when U.N. inspectors release their report on the alleged Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack as early as Monday. The secretary-general said the findings will likely be an "overwhelming report that the chemical weapons (were) used."

"(Assad) has committed many crimes against humanity," he said.

At the same time, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf reiterated that the report will probably not say who used chemical weapons. Assad and his allies in Russia have used that opening to claim the opposition may have been responsible -- an allegation strongly denied by U.S. officials who have their own intelligence and say Assad's government was to blame.......

Sensing perhaps that the threat of a U.S. strike is no longer imminent, Assad is publicly trying to strengthen his hand. In an interview with Russian television, he not only demanded the U.S. drop the threat of military action -- he also said the Obama administration must stop arming the opposition.

"When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria," Assad said, according to the translation by Russia's RIA Novosti. "Terrorists" is the term Assad often applies to members of the Syrian opposition."

Since I have been calling for the same thing almost from the beginning, I can't blame Assad for wanting the US to stop providing support to the rebels, but I do wonder how this move will end for Syria.

Obama essentially staked his reputation on getting support for strikes against the Syrian and has until this point lost - and badly so. Long ignored and denigrated-in the West, Putin has emerged as a voice of both influence and reason. Many, in spite of Obama and Kerry's increasingly frantic insistence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, are now less fearful of publicly voicing their suspicions as to the identities of actual perpetrators. The US, thankfully, was left with no viable option other than to step aside 

But for how long?

A narcissist like Obama perceives a loss - any loss,as a personal insult. Russia may or may not be able to maintain her current momentum for much longer if Assad can't extract any more concessions from the US but stands firm with his demands.

Obama may rant, rave, and back down again, but he also may fly into a knee-jerk reaction and bring the US right back to the precipice. If Obama generally keeps his mind but refuses to stop arming the rebels, Russia may increase her aid to the Syrian government to offset the advantage provided by the US. The best case scenario could be a proxy war reminiscent of the 1970's and 1980's. 

The US still has her fair share of sickos who so desperately want an Islamist state in Syria that they will engage is shameless drama to sway public opinion:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/cnns-christiane-amanpour-explodes-on-fellow-panelists-over-syria-i-can-barely-contain-myself-at-this-point/

“I can barely contain myself at this point. … How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used and as bad as it is to decapitate somebody it is in no means equal?,” she rhetorically asked.

Note that Christiane Amanpour employs the timeworn method of proving her point by references to claims that are now held suspect by - if not most, at least many, using the false assumption that quantity equals quality (and credibility).  "How many more times do we have to say..." proves precisely nothing. Like a Christian Fundamentalist who slings Bible verses en masse, despite their actual meaning or context, in the hopes of winning by sheer volume, Amanpour tries to get people to forget that chemical weapons may well have been used by the side that the US is not proposing to attack. She also tries to cloud the picture by conflating the situation n Syria with other conflicts. Neither the horrors of the slaughters in Rwanda, nor shameful indifference that the world displayed towards the plight of people in that nation, can be compared in any way with the Syrian conflict or our current decision-making, but Amanpour hopes that we won't notice her ruse. Note that she cares so little about the Christians and other non-Sunnis in Syria that she wants to whip Americans into a frenzy to call for actions that will result in even more violence for an already terribly suffering minority]

“We can’t use this false moral equivalence about what’s going on right now. They tried to do it in the Second World War, they tried to do it in Bosnia, they tried to do it in Rwanda and they tried to do it now. There is no moral equivalence,” continued Amanpour, noting that former President Bill Clinton is still apologizing 15 years after the Rwanda crisis.........

“I’m so emotional about this,” she said after a pause"

The People of the United States have been saddled with what has become a rare task - to think for themselves and see that there is a powerful lobby that will play on our feelings to support the creation of a state far more cruel and oppressive than Syria has had in a long time. They need to, literally, brush drama queens like Amanpour aside and insist that the US refrain from taking part in creating another Sharia state.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added 9/14/13:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/13/beck-reveals-why-he-has-such-disdain-for-cnns-christiane-amanpour/

“..........Amanpour is the biggest fraud I’ve ever met,” Beck said on the radio Friday. “She is somebody who has a distinct anti-Israel, anti-Western approach. And how do I know? Well, let’s just say that while we were at CNN…Christiane was one of the people that was instrumental in making my life a living hell trying to tell the truth about Islamic extremism.”
“We had all the video tapes. We had all the translations, and she made our life a living hell,” he reiterated. “This woman is so anti-Western and so anti-Jew, [it is] remarkable, remarkable that this woman has any credibility at all.”

Beck and his radio co-hosts also tore into the specifics of Amanpour’s argument, that “as bad as it is to decapitate somebody,” it is “by no means equal” to death by “weapons of mass destruction.”

“Let me give you that scenario: You’re snatched off the street, you’re bundled up, thrown into the back of a car. You’re held hostage. They torture you, or if you’re a woman, they rape you, repeatedly,” Beck said. “Then you get to hear them make their ‘Allah Akbar’ videotape in the other room, sharpen the machete, get it all ready, then put your head down in front of them while they make the other videotape and then they behead you.”

It is horrific to die either way, Beck said. “Murder is murder…I don’t care how you do it.”

Beck co-host Pat Gray [Noted that]  she didn’t seem as affected by the horrific use of chemical weapons in the case of Iraq.

“She couldn’t care less about the Kurds and what happened to Saddam Hussein,” Gray said. “Poison gas, sarin gas meant nothing to her, as it applied to Iraq. Nothing.”.........

Beck asserted: “Those 100,000 people were slaughtered because people like Christiane Amanpour were all celebratory about the great Arab Spring…which some of us with common sense…said, ‘don’t do it. It will destabilize the Middle East.’ Instead our president got up — along with the support of people like Christiane Amanpour — and they heralded the great Arab Spring. And our president said ‘More people should rise up!’ and they did.”........"