Barack Obama Hears the Cries of Hypocrisy and Reads the Polls … Obama Says He Will Wait for Vote and Ask for Congress’s Approval to Take Military Action Against Syria … What Happened to the Urgency to Attack?

UM, WHAT HAPPENED TO OBAMA’S URGENCY TO ATTACK SYRIA … LIKE PASSING OBAMACARE?

Talk about your 180′s? This afternoon in a 35 minute delayed Rose Garden White House presser, President Barack Obama stated that he had has decided to use military force against Syria, but will ask Congress for approval to do so. So what made Obama change his mind on going it alone without any approval, could it have been the cries of HYPOCRISY were so loud that even the Obamamessiah could not ignore?  So Obama will wait until Congress comes back on September 9 to debate and vote on approval to use military force. HUH? What happened to the immediacy of having to attack Syria? Obama and Kerry had stated we had to do this sooner rather than later. Now Obama is willing to wait at last another 9 or 10 days, maybe two weeks?  That line in the sand appears to have been washed away by the ocean waves. Or was it the vote by the British Parliament and the fact that Americans want no part of another war in the Middle East? However, one thing is certain, Obama has handled this entire thing so poorly, he looks like a weak, rank amateur.

I am still not sure how Assad gassing his people is a risk to the United States national security. Sorry, by Syria using chemical weapons against its people, whether they be men, women or children is hideous. But Syria did not use them against us or are they planning to.  Also, does it really matter how a dictator kills his own people? Is it more outrageous is a dictator kills 500 people with chemical weapons or a firing squad?

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, calling last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there “an attack on human dignity,” but said he would seek congressional authorization for an attack.

The announcement puts off an imminent cruise missile strike, a prospect that had put the region on edge and stoked intense debate in the United States, where many dread getting dragged into a new war. It is not clear what the Obama administration would do if Congress declines to authorize a military operation.

“We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus,” Obama said during an address at the Rose Garden. “This has implications beyond chemical warfare.”

Congress is in recess until Sept. 9, and it was not immediately clear whether lawmakers would try to convene earlier for an emergency vote. Leading lawmakers who had called on the administration to seek congressional approval were pleased by Obama’s announcement.

The Hill: Rep. Peter King: Obama ‘abdicating responsibility as commander in chief’.

In a scathing statement that differed sharply from the reaction of House GOP leaders, King said Obama was making a mistake that would undermine future presidents.

“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” said King, a former Homeland Security Committee chairman who has flirted with running for president in 2016.

“The president does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the president is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date,” King said.

Question 1: What happens if Congress does not give Congressional approval to attack Syria, much like the British Parliament denied UK Prime Minister Cameron? Obama has to sell his war against Syria and to date has not done so. Lobbing a couple of cruise missiles is hardly worth the headache. Obama has said that an attack would not be for regime change. So then what would it be for? Any attach against Assad will be in support of the opposition backed by Al-Qaeda.

Question 2: What happens if what Obama does creates regime change in Syria and we replace a dictator with Al-Qaeda?

As The British Aren’t Coming … Nearly 80% of Americans Want Congressional Approval Before Obama Attacks Syria

Welcome to Obama’s War: The Imperial President Barack Obama could care less what “We the People” think or the US Constitution and the separations of power.

As stated in a NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans want Barack Obama to get Congressional approval before the United States military attacks Syria. Let alone 50% of Americans want no military intervention what so ever if Syrian President Bashar Assad attacked his people with chemical weapons. Just yesterday, the British Parliament voted down their countries participation in any such attack. So the questions remains, will Obama ask Congress for approval to attack Syria? If he does, what happens if the Congress says No?

So does this mean the the US is going to attack a Middle East country on its own with no mission? Oh that will go over well on the Arab street. But how is Obama treating this any different than Obamacare, ram it through at all cost. This president has no idea how to create any consensus, they just assumed it. Right now, Obama has a ‘Coalition of None’.

Read the full poll here (.pdf)

Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.

The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain’s parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.

Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it’s limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships – 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.

Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.

From The Weekly Standard … No Regime Change—and Maybe No Strike At All.

Hmm, I wonder if Obama is going golfing this weekend?

Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Manager Says … “In Order for Black people to Survive the 21st Century, We are Going to Have to Kill a lot of Whites”

Obamanation, So this is what Hope & Change looks like … Can you say double standard?

Hey America, take a good look who is on the government payroll and getting paid with your hard earned tax dollars. Ayo Kimathi, who calls himself the “Irritated Genie,” a DHS manager moonlights as promoting a race war against whites. How the hell does this person have a job? A government employee is allowed to make such hateful and violent comments? Can you imagine if a white employee made the say type of comments against blacks calling for their extermination? Some one in the Obama administrations, and namely Barack Obamahas some explaining to do. This clown has the audacity to lecture us during the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin murder trial about race relations and he has a sick and twisted individual like this working in his DHS?

Not only do we question how this individual is still employed, how has the DOJ files hate crimes against this individual?

A Department of Homeland Security manager in charge of buying weapons and ammunition for the government is, on the side, running an inflammatory website that throws around gay slurs and advocates the mass murder of “whites” and the “ethnic cleansing” of “Uncle Tom race traitors,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Ayo Kimathi, who calls himself the “Irritated Genie,” told his supervisors that the website was set up to sell concert and lecture videos.

But the report showed the site’s content strayed far beyond concert promotion, warning about a coming race war. His website, “War on the Horizon,” declares, “in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites – more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” the Alabama-based SPLC said in its report.

So where does Barack Obama stand on this? Is it perfectly ok for a black supremacist to spew hate while employed by the federal government? Sorry, but if he were white he would have been fired yesterday and the NAACP would want hate crimes brought against the individual.

Audit Shows NSA Broke Privacy Rules 1000′s of Times Since 2008 … Bulk of Infractions Are “Unauthorized Surveillance of Americans”

NAH, the NSA is not spying on us. Only if you count the thousands of times that an audit showed they actually did …

The WAPO reports, an NSA audit dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. As The Hill states, the report is based on an internal audit and other documents leaked to the news organization by Edward Snowden. In other words, had Snowden not spill the beans, “We the People” would have had no knowledge of any of the NSA’s spying on Americans.

But its just a phony scandal.

VIDEO – CNN – CNN mocks Obama’s “Independent” group to review the NSA

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. [...]

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

Every now and then they make a mistake? 2776 TIMES!!!

But wait … Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong. Or was he purposely lying? Looks like Obama just got caught again with his hand in the “lying” cookie jar.

At a news conference Friday, President Obama insisted that the threat of NSA abuses was mostly theoretical:

If you look at the reports, even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden’s put forward, all the stories that have been written, what you’re not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and, you know, listening in on people’s phone calls or inappropriately reading people’s e-mails.

What you’re hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they’re not abused is because they’re — these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court].

But as Weasel Zippers opines, this is just a phony scandal, even though the NSA actually did spy on Americans.

WOW … Attorney Joe DiGenova for Whistleblower Says … 400 Missiles Stolen in Benghazi & “In Hands of Some Very Ugly People”

BENGHAZI-GATE: It’s all beginning to make sense why Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted Benghazi to go away  …

During an interview Monday with WMAL’s Mornings On The Mall, Benghazi whistleblower attorney Joe DiGenova, who represents Mark Thompson, told WMAL he’s been told that some “very ugly people” had stolen the missiles, and that the Benghazi annex played a key role in the theft. The below is a must listen audio from Joe DiGenova that connects the dots as to why the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State department did what they did following the terror attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead. It was never really about the Consulate for the terrorists, it was about the CIA annex. Ever wonder why the there was a delay of the FBI going to Benghazi to investigate the terrorist crime scene? Think the CIA wanted the FBI looking around and finding shoulder surface to air missiles right before a presidential election? What happens when these weapons are used against American targets? Weasel Zippers opines,  DiGenova “also notes that the President mentioned the sealed indictment to make it appear as though he was doing something, but violated a court order to reveal the sealed indictment.” I thought Obama was going to go after “leakers”? Except, when it is him.

Make no mistake about it America, Benghazi-gate is far worse than Watergate ever was. 4 AMERICANS DIED!!! But we have an obstruction administration and a complicit liberal MSM covering for their hero, Barack Obama.

More from Breitbart:

On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.’s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were “diverted to Libya” and ended up being stolen and falling into “the hands of some very ugly people.”

DiGenova represents Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson. He told WMAL that he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”

He claimed his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.” He said the biggest concern right now is finding those missiles before they can be put to use. “They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.

Gee Hillary Clinton, are you still asking “what difference does it make?”