By David A. Franklin, Jr. 

For beginners, the Republican Party was licking their chops after the 2010 mid-term elections when the Tea Party contributed 28 of the 39 seats they needed to take control of the House from the Democratic Party. They
literally won the House for the Republicans and since then Tea Party members have sought their rewards and have gotten it by fair or foul means. 
The GOP seemed to have expected these people to come in and fall in line or at best be rational human beings but the
2010 win is like karma….. it is biting the Republicans in the butt. The party just does not know what to do with them, how to handle them or how to get rid of them. Classic case in point, the House Speaker John Boehner when you think he cannot look any less stupid, any more of a coward any more out of control of his caucus he does.  Members of the Tea Party in the House hold Boehner where it hurts, applying pressure at will. No wonder his face wears a permanent scowl.

Up front, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) urged these ‘new-comers’ to “put on their boxing gloves and be sure not to be ‘co-opted by congressional leaders”. And put on their gloves they did but contrary to party’s wishes and hopes the gloved fists are being used to decimate/destroy their own party. This is a true case of “all that glitters is not gold” or “be careful for what you wish”.

Like the Syrian civil war the Republicans have many players, each with their own agenda and not with the interest of their country factored in.  Syria has the ruling Alawite sect (Shiite Muslim offshoot) which makes up President Assad’s senior political and military associates, the Sunni Muslims which is the majority and is aligned with the opposition; and then there are the other ethnic and religious minorities – the Armenians, Christians, Kurds, Druze, Palestinians and
the list goes on.

In comparison with Syria, the Tea Party which itself is a divided group boasts the SACs (Self Aggrandizing Clan)
sometimes led by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and then by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) the most transparently disgusting of them all, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Then there is the group of
Partiers who are not showboating as the foregoing but just as dangerous. Three or four sects of Tea Partiers which these ‘leaders’ dumb down with every utterance, with every clown show.

We have the Establishment GOP who really seem to speak one thing which resemble reasonableness but vote the other for fear of being primaried in their districts by the Tea Party - these are the NBBs the No-Backbone-Bunch. Rep. Peter King(R-NY) the exemplary, classic specimen of the NBBs says it loud and clear that Ted Cruz of the SACs is a fraud and that Cruz is among the group of “Senate Republicans trying to force this issue (of defunding Obamacare) are holding the entire Congress hostage.” One would release a big sigh that at least there is one or even two reasonable heads in the Republican Party but then despite Kings vocal protest about this defunding baloney, he voted for the bill!!! A bill which supports the continuing resolution to fund the government but to defund the healthcare law. King’s explanation that he voted thusly “to keep the process going”. One cannot be sure who is talking at any one time, is it King the Reasonable, King the Scaredy Cat, or King the Pendulum…who? And so it is with so many of these NBBs. And like in the Syrian war, we cannot  forget the other religious and other types of minorities, chief among these is Sarah Palin who like a sleeping drunk opens her eyes and mouth and makes some stupid utterances when she thinks it is time for some  self-publicity. Not unlike Al Qaeda are Fox News and conservative talk show
hosts, Rush Limbaugh being the leader of this group.

It is plain even to the Grade 2 Elementary School student who is in the early stages of learning critical thinking that the goal of the GOP is to continue to escalate and amplify their hate for the President while in the meantime reducing the federal government to rubble. 

The part-time, on-and-off Tea Partier Rand Paul’s eyes are fastened on the White House who together with Marco Rubio decided that a sure path to presidency is to join Ted Cruz. So in this civil altercation within his party Paul is doing a “hit and run and back again”. The one minute he is a political outsider because he reads Americans as being sick and tired with Washington while at the same time underscoring the point that he has in his arsenal, enough knowledge of
government to drastically cut its size, its scope and government’s invasiveness in the lives of the American people. But hold on! Remember even if you do not agree with one’s opinions, ideas and ideals one can respect the individual for what he/she stands for if he/she holds these resolutely. But this Paul character (and a character he is) is straddling
between a tea party libertarian and at times convenient to him, he tries to appeal to the GOP establishment the group that he was so successful in running against in the 2010 mid-term elections. He now realizes that he needs to throw to the Establishment GOP members a bone of appeasement that would taste like he is on their side, supporting them but it is a bone that is transparently covered with the meat of manipulation, and exploitation at very least. Why do individual players in the GOP game think they are the only ones endowed with good sense?

VIDEO: Why Americans Are Against War On Syria
Published on Aug 30, 2013  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJYuViS-XVI  
In this video Luke Rudkowski
documents an anti-war protest on August 29th 2013. He asks the protesters why they are  protesting, what people should know and what they hope to happen:

Would you agree with me that this previously sensible group called Republicans who have benefitted from the likes of the country’s 16th and their first Republican president Abraham Lincoln who lead the nation (not the party) out of its worst internal conflict – the Civil War and bringing strength and organization to the Republican Party is gone to the dogs?  Lincoln set the stage and example to resolve a civil war of national proportion and these now-a-days self-serving, extremist political terrorists do not have the belly to, in the first place avoid a civil war within their ranks and should the conflict evolve as it has, to come together and lead as an homogenous group. No they can’t this
is just a greedy, self-serving group seeped in hatred for the President and love of self at the expense of the country. 
 
The Tea Party is a thorn, a spike and a prickle in the butt of the Republican Party. Democrats could say ‘keep on doing what you are doing Republicans’ if it were not that this group’s actions is bringing the country to its knees, destroying what hard working, well-meaning, logical, insightful Americans past and present have and continue to build. 

At times the situation seems hopeless but it is not. What can be done to this group of buffoons, Americans have the most powerful ‘weapon’ to surgically remove them from the management of the country! The power of the vote!!!

CLICK HERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kitchenpolitics123/2013/09/29/s04e04-how-stupid-are-some-americans-lets-count-the-ways
"KITCHEN POLITICS 123 RADIO SHOW with DAVE & LORI"  
S04/E04: "How Stupid Are SOME Americans? Let's Count The Ways!" 
Show Date: Sunday, September 29, 2013 
Time: 7:30pm EST
Telephone: 619-789-1959 

Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration do not believe a military strike on Syria could be called a war. According to Mr. Kerry "We don't believe we are going to go to war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war," ‘War in the classic sense’ to me is a play upon words in an attempt to downplay the eminent consequences of a Syrian ‘invasion’, ‘surgical strike’ or whatever we wish to christen this.

I like one definition by Ckaysewitz “war is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. It is in this case but the ‘our’ here are the world nations so America should not adopt and own this and go it alone; as a matter, how things are poised and are shaping up, it seems as if America is the only country barring one or two who want
to apply this solution. 
 
Let us go down memory lane on a few ‘not wars’ and see the devastation.

Vietnam War was an unofficial title but it was never officially declared war under the Constitution’s war powers clause. President Johnson was given the go ahead under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 to authorize 
“conventional military force”. Sounds familiar? “Surgical strike”. Over one million people dead including Americans, South Viatnamese and Viet Cong Troops. Civilian toll was astronomical.

Panama Invasion in 1989 was another non-war that killed hundreds of soldiers and a count of up to approximately 3,000 civilians. 
 
The Lebanon Intervention another of the species claimed the lives of 300 Americans (civilians and soldiers) and an unknown number of Lebanese. In this non-war the backlash was severe. – a suicide bomber killed 63 at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, followed by a month later where a Marine barracks in Beirut was attacked killing 241 American Soldiers. This was the largest loss of American military lives since Vietnam. Can America guarantee that Syria and its allies will not or are not planning their own “surgical strikes”? Is America thinking that they will sit back as lame ducks and do nothing? Will other factions within the mix, Al-Qaeda and the bad faction of the rebels in Syria see this as a window of opportunity to execute some devastation of their own?

And these are but a few of the ‘non-wars’ where all that was obvious was that devastation and loss of lives was the result. So call it what you may, you go into another country whether on ground, from the air or sea, it is war.

It will not be ‘long term’ the President and Secretary of State John Kerry say. Neither was it the intention of Vietnam, nor Iraq or Afghanistan. Then it is about what is long term – 5 to 10 years or 20 years? Are they banking that Assad will curl up and die? Will Putin, who has the biggest ego ever bestowed on mankind, sit cowardly by and not help the country in which he has so much investment? No and he said he will not.

Then for some Republicans there is never a time that they miss the opportunity to politic. In the process they flavor their
utterances with  blatant lies or they might be downright uninformed. This week, Ileana Ros-Lehtien, Florida Republican House Representative a top Republican conjured Ronald Regan’s apparent vigor in her criticism of the President. Again the Republican godhead was praised for his strength to amplify what they say is Obama’s weakness. She said he is weak in not acting ‘more directly’ in response to chemical weaponry in Syria. Of course she was on FOX, the farm for breeding and nurturing lies and misinformation. 

“It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken
our resolve. I — I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen. He would stand up to this. And President Obama — the only reason he is consulting with Congress, he wants to blame somebody for his lack of resolve. We have to think like President Reagan would do and he would say chemical use is unacceptable.” 
Ms. Ros-Lehtien said.

A little history lesson for this Republican and FOX News and its die-hards. As recent as August 2013 the news revealed that declassified CIA documents confirmed that the “U.S. knew about and in some case helped Iraq’s chemical weapons attack against Iran in the 1980s” New Docs Detail U.S. Involvement in Saddam’s Nerve Gas Attacks, The
Atlantic Wire, Abby Ohlheiser, August 25, 2013:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/.  

It was Ronald Regan who turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons against Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld who should have no voice to talk or lips to form words such as “oust Assad or stay on the golf course” .. “take responsibility”. Isn’t he who said of Iraq and Afghanistan that “history will judge the two wars a success and the harbinger of freedom for literally millions”? These wars (or non-wars) belonged to him as Secretary of Defense but of course he and his Neo-Con buddies are given large platforms to lecture the American people on matters of grave importance such as war. The unfortunate thing is majority listen and absorb as truth and gospel. Sad, sad day. 

Representative Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) has switched his ‘yes’ to the Syria strike to a ‘no’ and for no other reason
than fundraising:

"Today, I decided to withdraw my support from President Obama's proposal for a military strike against Syria. I have heard from many of you in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and it is clear to me that their [sic] is strong opposition to the strike. As your voice in Washington, I will continue to listen and take a stand for you,"….  "Will you stand with me in opposing President Obama's plan with a donation of $25 or more right now?"

Whether it is to save face, ego, politics, self-aggrandizement, posturing for upcoming elections, fundraising, what we are witnessing are politicians playing games and nothing of real thought as to what end is this ‘surgical strike’? What do
we expect to accomplish and how realistic is our expectations? What are the unintended consequences and who will it hurt?

VIDEO: Why Americans Are Against War On Syria
Published on Aug 30, 2013  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJYuViS-XVI

In this video Luke Rudkowski documents an anti-war protest on August 29th 2013. He asks the protesters why they are  protesting, what people should know and what they hope to happen:

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said “it will be heavy lift” for the president, but it is a heavy lift for the American people. I implore the president and Congress to cut the ego (red line) crap and pivot back to home. Two or three of the 189 countries who signed on to the 1993 Chemical Weapons treaty have indicated they will go along with any strike,
most are not buying into it. Has somebody died and left America god? Why are we playing World Police?

1. America cannot deal with its own weapons of mass destruction and get gun control enacted.  Why does 
    the President and those who support this strike think the country has the gonads or the moral authority to 
    singlehanded (without the input of UN or other member countries) to stop Assad from using his WMD? Explain it to 
    me because there must be a plausible explanation to this puzzle.

2. Why don’t we have funds to give 30 million additional Americans healthcare, to pay teachers, to fund schools, to 
    fund school feeding programs to nurture poor kids who might be heading to mal-nutrition, to … BUT we can, from 
    out of thin air decide to launch missiles which cost $1m apiece and an estimated $60,000 an hour for planes that 
    drop bombs on targets? Yet there are cuts galore at home to feed the very persons who voted these lawmakers in to 
    run their lives. $40m cut from food stamps, cuts in education, cuts in police, fire department and housing and 
    no funds for infrastructure upkeep.  

3. When Iraq and Afghanistan were entered, there was money in the coffers which was used to fund these non-wars at 
    the expense of all other things. Now Mr. President, there are no funds… where is the money coming from to support 
    this ‘invasion’, ‘surgical strike’ or whatever innuendo we wish to attach to this planned war.

4. What is happening to the inequities in unemployment of blacks sitting at 13%, for Hispanics ticking up to over 9% 
    while never even equating to the national average while white unemployment sits at 6.0% never ticking above the 
    national average.

5. What of immigration reform, the budget, sequester, public service employee layoffs?

6. Shouldn’t you Mr. President and Congress be putting this level of energy and effort to addressing these domestic 
    problems rather than seeking to go it alone to invade a country on a problem which, by your own admission, is a 
    world problem - a world majority of whom seem not to give a damn because they themselves are trying to build their 
    own country? There is wisdom in the thinking that you can only truly help someone else when you have the strength 
    and wherewithal to help yourself. And I dare say America is not showing that capacity to help itself-
    not now.                    
 
Charity---It Begins At Home...

CLICK HERE (PRESS REMINDER BUTTON): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kitchenpolitics123/2013/09/12/s04e01-emmanuel-morel-for-congress-and-more-on-syria
"KITCHEN POLITICS 123 RADIO SHOW with DAVE & LORI"  
S04/E01: "Emmanuel Morel for Congress 2014 (And More On Syria)" 
Show Date: Thursday, September 12, 2013 
Time: 7:30pm EST
Telephone: 619-789-1959 

Listen/Call In To Our Radio Show:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/kitchenpolitics123
"Kitchen Politics 123 Radio Show with Dave & Lori" 
TELEPHONE (619) 789-1959
Every Thursdays at 7:30pm EST & Sundays at 6pm EST

By David A. Franklin, Jr.

I have watched and listened to the deliberations, debates and discussions between lawmakers, analysts, specialists, experts, commentators and gurus on networks, on the radio and on local television channels over the past days on the subject of Syria. Every utterance, every reaction reeks of the stench of ego and the essence of politics. Neither of
these is good reason for any type of interference in a country’s civil affairs.

You hear about the President’s Red Line ad nauseam and to such deafening and utter annoyance. The media has been fueling a strong current of impatience with President Obama, some mockingly so, for not living up to their interpretation of the actions indicative of a red line. Strike now and if the strike does not happen, not only the President but the country will be viewed as ‘chicken’ and the delicate egos of the male dominated self-appointed group of experts will be irreparably bruised in the eyes of the rest of the world.  After all, the modus operandi is for brute force to be applied by the all-powerful United States of America as seen in likes of Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. No due diligence is necessary; no lessons learnt to be recognized – just strike because the country will be viewed as losing its humph, its strength, its face. I have heard some evoke justification of an attack under the United Nation’s “responsibility to attack” doctrine which gives the green light for foreign countries to attack where people in other countries are being abused by their government. Here again, the egotistical interpretation is being applied and the full and fair appreciation of the UN’s doctrine is being circumvented. As a matter of fact, there need not be any interpretation since the wording is plain enough for a child in kindergarten to understand “any such action must be through the security
council in accordance with the charter”. To attack then under this umbrella would be illegal because the elements that qualify are missing. 

But I invite these pundits and politicians alike to consider this: it takes a huge dose of pluck and mettle to recognize and
accept that sometimes there is little or nothing people/countries on the outside can do. This is one such case and we must examine what is that little in the interest of human lives and the untold suffering that is apparent in the Syria issue and other such cases.

My comments must not be interpreted as a lack of concern for the human wretchedness and suffering that Assad has inflicted on the people of Syria. The Syrians, I am sure only wish to live a life of normalcy (whatever their culture and religion(s) define as normal). Call me paranoid but I am certain that this push from some politicians and media houses to strike and not only on the restricted to the surgical method as is suggested by President Obama is nothing but stoking the fire to bump up viewership and listenership, to satisfy the Military Industrial Complex whose lobbyists are in the shadows urging a fight and to the politicians who need to keep the mill of discrediting the President well-oiled and
running. He is damned if he does – “See you have started a war with no due diligence examined as to what happens after the strike and what can be the resulting post-strike consequences”. He is damned if he doesn’t. This is a weak President. I have heard comments (and not on Fox who is the President’s nemesis) “Is this the 3:00 am call and will he be able to answer it?” 

The use of the expression “red line” by the President was unwise and includes him in the group of egotists. The more
elevated we are, is the more exposed and scrutinized we are. It is therefore imperative that we constantly exercise a conscious level of caution and be guarded and be diplomatic with our utterances. President Obama must recognize and accept that indeed there are sometimes and in some cases there is little that can be done from the outside and he
must explore what that ‘little’ might be and how to best execute that ‘little’.

What magnitude of efficiency would a limited surgical attack achieve? Could it deter future chemical attacks and are we so sure that this would scare Assad to the extent that he would stop the carnage whether by use of chemicals or other means. The answer is a resounding “NO”.  

There is a battle cry from some quarters to “do something” and in my opinion doing something would only serve to
stoke the egos of the US and some western allies and almost certainly ignite a regional war in the Middle East.  

Correct me if I am wrong. Where are the voices of the neighboring Arab countries that would be mostly affected by
Assad’s and Iran’s accelerated aggression? It seems to me that they are too non-vocal on a matter of their own safety…. But no… we need this attack to punish Syria but let the bully America go out in front who have little but
“feel good” to gain from such an action. The US always buys out and owns conflicts – they are the big brother and we feel comfortable to cower behind them even though it is our business that is at risk. Then if it is successful, we can say we supported the actions and if it fails we say we did not give it our blessings. Heads they win, tails the US loses. That is what I call international politics. 

Israel, another country to which these upheavals bring at very least uncertainty and unease expressed shock at the President’s postponement of the attack to seek Congressional approval. “There is the concern that this will be seen in the region as the US president hesitating to enforce his red lines and that that will send the wrong messages to other regional powers” according to an Israeli official. I hope the American people and  government will learn from these experiences that it is hard to please everybody and uneasy is the head that wears the crown – the crown of big brother and of ‘police of the world’ – a position which was self-assumed and should be revisited to see if it is worth the effort.

Then there is the home grown politics. There has been the deafening cry that the President needs to bring the matter for congressional support or rejection; yet when he accedes to that route versus going it without such debate, the
pundits opined: “The move places the president’s Syria policy on an unknown course subjecting it to a certain showdown on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are deeply divided on the issue and even more so over Mr. Obama himself. By agreeing to a congressional debate, Mr. Obama faces some amount of risk that he will be handed a defeat by
legislators, like that suffered by British Prime Minister David Cameron over Syria this past week”. Obama to Seek Congressional Vote on Syria Strike, The Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2013.

Hello-o-o-o-o! Why is everything a battle? I would think that putting it to Congress for its input is the democratic thing to do and not deemed a personal Obama “risk that he will be handed a defeat” Are we not all in this thing together?

These lawmakers, pundits and the media sit comfortably on the side of the Syrian columnist who says:
‘Why won’t Obama tell Assad how long the attack will last so he can book his vacation after it?’ 

Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of what is best for America and the American people? Why do we continue to feed and fatten the pockets of paid pundits, the Military Industrial Complex, and boost the ratings and the bottom lines of the media houses? 

The American people continue to speak their wishes – they are war-weary, they are suffering from a lack of jobs, good education, healthcare and opportunities and I dare say that the attention that is given to these issues pale in comparison to that which is afforded the Syria issue. Eighty percent (80%) of the American people want congressional approval on Syria but there is harsh criticism of the President taking this route and going with the will of the
people. 

But then, when have the opinions of the American people been taken into serious consideration? Never! But Americans should not relent and they must keep speaking up especially at the polls on election-day. Someone will hear – eventually.