Sunday, September 29, 2013

Obamacare’s Failures Are Causing Democrats To Become Unhinged

Derek Hunter 
 Sep 29, 2013

 While the media has been fixated on Republican infighting over how to deal with Obamacare, it has completely ignored the panic-induced irrational rhetoric coming from Democrats on the same subject.

No, they aren’t openly forming circular firing squads like Republicans do – progressives put their agenda above ego and public disagreement. But they are worried because, while Obamacare was built to fail, it wasn’t expected to fail so early. That failure puts at risk the progressive dream of single-payer health care in the United States.

We are moving past the “cost estimate” stage of Obamacare into reality of what Obamacare will mean to Americans’ pockets. As the state exchanges get ready to go live on Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services released the cost of insurance premiums for individuals in some states, and the numbers aren’t good.

Sure, progressive “journalists,” such as New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, took a thesaurus to White House press releases and published rewritten end zone dances, featuring lines like, “I grant that glitches and setbacks have occurred, mostly but not entirely because of fanatical Republican sabotage effort.”

While Chait was claiming premium “savings” and declaring, “I have yet to see a single conservative grapple with the positive developments,” serious analysts such as the Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy brought some honesty to the table. He writes, “HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect.”

In fact, Roy found that comparing apples to apples and not apples to Subarus, “Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent.”
 When the comparison is an honest one it is not much of a “positive development.”

This fact has progressives worried. Obamacare was designed to fail, but it was designed to fail eventually, not quickly. Progressives, with the help of the media, would blame a failure a few years from now on the “free market.” But failure from the start will force the blame fall where is squarely belongs – on government control.

How, you may ask, could an exchange set up, governed and subsidized by a government bureaucracy be called a “free market”? It’s already happened.

When Walgreens announced it planned to drop the insurance it has been providing employees because of Obamacare, none other than the Washington Post hailed it as a great development for them. Those 160,000 employees would not be able to keep the plan they had if they liked it, as the president repeatedly promised. Instead, they would be “joining a growing list of large employers seeking to control costs by having employees shop for coverage in a private marketplace.” (emphasis added)

Of course, there’s nothing “private” about it. But that lie is out there, with the credibility of none other than the Washington Post behind it. Which was the point. People who don’t pay attention will now be exposed to it, and it will spread.

Developments of this sort are now commonplace. The list of companies dropping coverage or cutting hours to avoid Obamacare’s costs now number more than 300 and is growing every day.

With this growing pressure and increasing public realization of the failures of Obamacare, its proponents are getting desperate. The plan is in motion. The law is in place. No matter how much spin they put on it, this lemon seems ready to collapse at the starting line. This is leading to some unhinged behavior.

This week Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called opponents of Obamacare “anarchists” for working within the normal functions of government to defund it. The president’s senior advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, said the White House is “not for negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” Ironically, he said this Thursday, the day before the president announced he’d spoken to the president of Iran, and while he is in the midst of negotiating with Syria over chemical weapons. No to talking with Republicans, yes to Iran and Syria.

Were the President a beer spokesman he might say, 'I don’t always associate with terrorists, but when I do, I prefer they be real terrorists and have been responsible for murdering Americans.' It’s appropriate, I suppose, because he is the “worst president in the world.”

The president himself is engaging in an ever-growing rhetorical meltdown. In his continued effort to sell Obamacare to the public, he’s been giving speeches about its virtues. Part of his rhetorical repertoire is the claim that “there's no serious evidence that the law … is holding back economic growth." The absurdity of this lie can be explained only by desperation or, as he has claimed in the cases of Fast & Furious and the IRS targeting of his political opponents, the president simply hasn’t read or seen any media stories about all the layoffs and cuts in hours.

As more of the train derails the rhetoric will become more desperate.

That’s why a one-year delay, the strategy being discussed now by Republicans, shouldn’t be pursued. A delay gives Obamacare time, and time is life. That’s why the president has delayed as many of the most egregious parts of the law. The further away from launch it collapses the more likely their plan to blame the private market is to work. Republicans should be doing what they can to speed up the inevitable collapse and suing to force the administration to have Obamacare implemented as it is written, as they wrote and passed it. After all, as they’ve been constantly reminding everyone, “It’s the law,” not “mostly the law.”

What Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, did this week was invaluable in that it forced the problems the government created to the top of the consciousness of the American public (though the media is trying to undo that damage). But the collective attention span of the American people is short. In a year or two it will be forgotten. The best chance to destroy Obamacare is to get out of its way and let nature take its course.


Saturday, September 21, 2013

EXCLUSIVE: Palin -- Bombs Away on Obamacare; Cruz Is over the Target

Americans who are fed up with Obamacare won a victory yesterday. The House voted to defund Obamacare while still funding the federal government to avoid a “devastating” shutdown. (I shall not digress, but it’s beyond distressing to hear liberals try to convince Americans that any government slowdown is comparable to “terrorism.”)  Now the battle goes to the Senate, and we’ll find out if Harry Reid is so committed to the horrendous “Un-affordable Care Act” that he’ll be the one to shut down the government to fund the unworkable Obamacare.

Let’s be clear. Republicans in Congress aren't advocating a government shutdown. That’s why they voted in the House to fully fund our bureaucracy while defunding Obamacare. The conservatives in Congress are listening to the majority of Americans who do not want Obamacare.

Following the will of the people is apparently a novel idea in D.C. these days. Just ask Senator Ted Cruz and his liberty-loving posse on Capitol Hill who have led the charge to defund Obama’s train wreck.

Those of us who hang in there supporting a major political party with our energy, time, and contributions would like to believe that that party would praise principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for following through on campaign promises. We’d like to believe that the GOP establishment would applaud the way these bold leaders have rallied the grassroots to their cause. But, no, such praise would require a commensurate level of guts and leadership, and the permanent political class in D.C. is nothing if not gutless and rudderless.

We’re now, once again, subjected to the “anonymous sources” backstabbing game. The Capitol Hill cowards are rushing to anonymously denounce Senator Cruz to any reporter with a pad and pen.

Welcome to our world, Ted. The same people have been denouncing conservatives like me for years (right after they ask for help fundraising for themselves or endorsing the latest candidate they’ve suckered into paying their exorbitant consulting fees). We can compare shiv marks next time we meet, my friend.

If the Senate doesn’t get behind Ted Cruz’s efforts to defund Obamacare, it won’t be because of any failure on Ted’s part. It’ll be because there weren’t enough principled leaders to stand with him, and that would be a tragic loss, not for Ted, but for America.

More and more Americans are waking up to the nightmare of Obamacare as its rollout continues. Hardworking families are losing their employer-provided health care coverage. Businesses are cutting back their employees’ hours to skirt Obamacare’s mandates. Americans barely scrapping by are discovering that Obamacare has made health care completely unaffordable. Those who aren’t part of a protected special interest group have been left in the cold.

When you’re living on a fixed income, having to pay hundreds of dollars more each month for health care will cut into your ability to pay for basic necessities like food, electricity, or gas (which has increased 90% under Obama). Open your eyes, America. When the full reality of Obamacare strikes home, we’ll thank God that principled leaders like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee took a stand to stop it in its tracks.

But the permanent political class is handwringing and howling that if there’s a government shutdown the media will blame Republicans for it. Here’s a little newsflash, GOP establishment: Whenever anything bad happens, the media blames Republicans for it. That’s not an excuse to roll over and play dead. It’s a call to follow the advice I give my daughters: Woman up, stand your ground, and fight like a girl!

I want no pity. I need no empathy. But use me as a barometer. Over the years, the leftwing media has falsely and irrationally accused me of everything from faking a pregnancy to abetting murder. They lie. Deal with it.

Republicans in Congress support funding the government. If the Democrats block these funding measures, a government shutdown is on them. In the meantime, stop the ridiculous hysterics. Heck, about the most significant thing that happened during the last government shutdown was Clinton hooked up with Monica.

As I said in my speech at CPAC this year, it’s time for the Senate to put itself on Cruz Control.
Ignore the peanut gallery pundits. They’ve written my political obituary so many times, I’m practically Lazarus. Now they’re trying to destroy Ted Cruz. Good luck with that, you weasels. Texans are just as tough as Alaskans. Smaller, but just as tough.

But here’s the important thing that none of these establishment backstabbers understand. It’s not the messenger that matters. It’s the message. You can try to take out someone like Ted Cruz, but that won’t stop the message from catching fire. The message is liberty, and it’s been resounding ever since a band of patriots dumped tea in Boston harbor.

The message only grows stronger. The grassroots is bigger than any one person. We the People will rise up, and we will make our voices heard. Right now, Ted Cruz is speaking for us in this Obamacare fight. God bless him for it.

Hang in there, Ted and Mike. You have millions of supporters among ordinary hardworking Americans. We support you because you don’t shy away from the fray. May your colleagues in the Senate gain the wisdom to support your excellent efforts so that you can see that the view is better from inside the bus than under it.

Oh, and a little reminder to Republican senators up for re-election in 2014: Moose season ends soon, allowing more time on one’s hands. So, we’ll be watching your votes very carefully this week.

Big Government

As Freedom Destroys Itself

 All of us were horrified by the murders at the Washington Navy Yard this week. Once again, in the aftermath of a shooting, a new installment of the debate about gun laws has broken out. But what we really need is a new discussion about what kind of people we are and what kind of country we want to be.

It’s no secret which side I’m on in any debate involving the Second Amendment (or the whole Constitution, for that matter). We call Alaska America’s Last Frontier, and firearms are a big part of our lifestyle here because they are part of our frontier tradition. And, as I tell my daughters, the ability to use a firearm responsibly and to defend yourself is also part of our heritage as American women.

The iconic musket over the fireplace wasn’t just for the menfolk on the frontier. Those stalwart women who crossed oceans and wilderness to settle our country knew how to protect themselves and their families. (One of my favorite scenes in the miniseries John Adams is when Abigail Adams, alone with her children in besieged Massachusetts while her husband is away at the Continental Congress, shoulders the family musket to protect her little ones when she hears the distant sounds of battle. That’s our heritage, ladies.)

Hunting is an integral part of our lifestyle in the 49th state. Using guns isn’t just recreation for us; it’s how many of us get our dinner. Granted, today, with a grocery store on virtually every corner, there isn’t the actual necessity to live a “subsistence lifestyle” that there was a generation ago in Alaska when I was growing up, but my family still lives by the motto “We eat; therefore, we hunt.” We live off the healthy organic protein provided by Alaska’s wild fish and game.

Todd and I have taught our kids how to handle firearms responsibly, just as my dad taught me. In fact, we took our girls for a special hunt on Mother’s Day this year at our cabin looking out at the distant majestic peak of Mt. McKinley, and we had a blast teaching twelve-year-old Piper mounted shooting in warm Montana this summer.


 I’m proud of my frontier heritage, and I’ll fight vehemently against anything that would limit the constitutional rights of Americans. But I can certainly sympathize with the many well-meaning Americans who desperately feel the need to find a way to prevent these senseless killings. Who among us doesn’t feel sadness, anger, and even despair after these tragedies?

But we must remember that emotion won’t make anybody safer or protect our rights. Beware of politicians who exploit our emotions in an attempt to pass laws that even they admit wouldn’t have prevented the violence.

CNN’s Don Lemon recently saw the light on this issue and highlighted the Centers for Disease Control study showing that so-called military assault rifles account for a small fraction of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are inflicted with handguns, but a ban on handguns is not only politically untenable; it would also hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves (especially Americans who live in troubled urban areas where the police are slow to respond to emergency calls).

Instead of offering real solutions based on facts, reactionary politicians offer us the politics of emotion, which is the opposite of leadership. It is the manipulation of the people by the political class for their own political ends. It is so very self-serving, but, worse, it is destructive.

The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?”

And that is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: “What can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?”

Earlier this year I spoke at the NRA convention and reminded a conscientious, patriotic audience that our country’s Founders asked themselves that question and knew the answer. They understood that a free people must either nurture morality or lose their freedom. John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Not coincidentally, he wrote that to the officers of the Massachusetts militia when the young republic was on the verge of war with France. He reminded those officers who were charged with leading armed men that the freedoms secured by the Constitution take for granted a decent and civil society.

This isn’t just a question for American society. It’s a civilizational question for all humanity. Margaret Thatcher spoke eloquently of this co-dependence of freedom and morality. She said, “Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs, some spiritual heritage transmitted through the Church, the family, and the school.”

I’m reminded of that quote every time I see politicians reach for the easy answers instead of asking the hard questions after tragedies like the one this week. When they seek to strip away our Second Amendment rights instead of suggesting that those who hide behind the First Amendment need to act more responsibly, they are helping freedom destroy itself. When Hollywood glorifies violence with its movies and music, but then underwrites efforts to take away our rights, it is helping freedom destroy itself. When those incorporating virtue into their lives are criticized, mocked, and bullied while pop culture’s kingmakers elevate and celebrate a self-centered “I’ll do what I want and consequences be damned” mentality, those kingmakers and bullies are helping freedom destroy itself. And when We the People shrug our shoulders and duck our heads while society becomes more cynical and our sense of family and community atrophies, we’re all helping freedom destroy itself.

Americans have always had access to firearms. Guns certainly aren’t any more pervasive now than they were back when the Minutemen were stockpiling weapons at Lexington and Concord. But something definitely has changed since then. It’s not the weapons. It’s us.

Instead of rushing to find some magical legislative solution, we need to ask ourselves a few hard questions: Are we creating a culture that can live and thrive in freedom? Do we have bold leaders willing and able to nurture such a culture? Do we have artists whose works reflect and inspire such a culture? Consider the answers to these questions carefully, because, if the answers are no, then we are in much more trouble than any new law can fix.

A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.

The solutions we seek won’t be found in the halls of Congress or state legislatures. Might I humbly suggest that we step back from the TV, take a breath, hug our kids, reach out to friends and neighbors, and say a prayer.

— Sarah Palin is the former governor of Alaska and was the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee.

National Review

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Dangerous Times: Are Obama's Syrian Stumbles Good for America?

September 7, 2013
By James Lewis

 Conservatives are patriots. When we see an American president in trouble, we tend to see his problems as our own.

Which makes it hard to know how to react to Obama's troubles in Syria.

I am going to make an unusual case here that Obama's Syrian stumbles actually benefit the United States and the civilized world.

If that sounds odd -- well, it is.

I can think of only one precedent: Jimmy Carter's punch in the nose from Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which caused American voters to elect Ronald Reagan instead.

Reagan speedily restored respect for America in the world. For one thing, as soon as Reagan was elected Khomeini released his US hostages in Tehran. Ten years later the Soviet Empire crumbled.

Looking back, it seems that Jimmy Carter and his NSC advisor Zbig Brzezinski actually helped the sadistic Khomeini regime rise to power after pulling the rug out from our ally, the Shah of Iran. Apparently Carter thought the United States deserved to lose Iran as an ally because of what happened in 1953, almost three decades before, when Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. This is plainly insane, but Carter and Brzezinski still defend their screwy reasoning today, while the Iranian theocracy kills its young people and commits aggression against us.

In the upshot, defeating Carter was a very good thing for the United States and the West.
Obama is the second fervently anti-American president we have seen. That was hard to accept for a long time, but after the overthrow of our longtime ally Mubarak in Egypt, after Obama's active support for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood, after the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation to Al Qaida-allied rebels in Syria, and now, after Obama's selective outrage against Syrian poison gas attacks in a civil war where 130,000 Syrians have died -- after all those facts I don't think Obama is running a pro-American policy any more.

After all, Obama is running the "apologize for white folks" administration. It's the "American guilt" administration. It's the "bow to tyrants" administration. All that stuff looked like a farce when it happened. But it turns out to be the real Obama.

While we were scratching our heads about his oddball president, his tiny inner circle -- Obama, Jarrett, Michele, Axelrod -- were going Go 'Bama! Bow down to another murderous tyrant, please!
 If that seems perverse, it was. This is the most perverse administration in American history.

By now it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Obama is fervently anti-American. Which is what you might learn from his personal history, all the way from Mom the Stalinist, to his "mentor" Frank Davis the child pornographer, all the way to the "Reverend" Jerry Wright and the Alinsky Machine in Chicago.

They all sing the same song, and love for America is never part of it. There's no way Obama could have been marinated in that toxic stew all his life and not come out as a feverishly anti-American ideologue.

Today we see the proof.

Five years ago, after Obama was elected by our America-loathing political class, the One delivered his Message to the Muslim World from Al Azhar University in Cairo. We now know that Obama's speech signaled a radical reversal of American policy, flipping 180 degrees to support Jihadist war cults like Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's mullah cult.

On the face of it, supporting your deadly enemy in a time of war is insane. But this is Obama. Maybe he explains it to our Chiefs of Staff as a clever way to split the Sunnis from the Shiites. Lying is Obama's biggest talent, and no doubt he spins his actions in different ways to different people.

But look at the facts.

Obama is now exposed as having directly supported Islamic jihad cults in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He has done it in close coordination with the Islamist regime of Recip Erdogan in Turkey and with the Muslim Brotherhood in America. There is a good reason why Huma Abedin was Hillary's "personal aide" as Secretary of State. Huma had worked as a magazine editor for the MBs, and her close family is Muslim Brotherhood.

There is not much doubt where her loyalties lie.

(The fact that Tony Weiner the penis texter is married to Huma suggests that Tony has at least one other talent: Swinging enough money from the Brotherhood to run for mayor of New York. Just a wild guess, you understand. For all I know, Tony might the best qualified guy in Manhattan.)

But let's get back to Obama.

Wherever Obama saw a chance he has tried to shaft our Middle East allies, including Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Netanyahu in Israel, and even the Saudis, who hate Obama's retreat in the face of their biggest threat, Iranian nukes and missiles. The Saudis live right across the Persian Gulf from Iran, and Khomeini tried to overthrow them thirty years ago. They haven't forgotten that.

Still, the Arabs have resisted Obama as much as possible. They have suffered a great deal. Today, Egypt is still in chaos. Libya is in a civil war. Millions of Syrians have fled from the war between Sunni radicals (supported by Obama) and the Assad regime. No wonder the Saudis are trying to make a deal with Vladimir Putin. America used to protect its allies. Today we just shaft them.

On top of that Obama has orchestrated a retreat from Afghanistan by negotiating with the Taliban -- remember them? They are the sadists who blow up girls' schools over there, because women should never be educated. They also harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida in the run-up to 9/11/01.
Without the Taliban, the Twin Towers would still be standing in Manhattan. Today Obama is trying to make friends with them.

Obama has bowed low to the priesthood of Iran, now under "moderate" president Rouhani, who commanded their attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Marines on a peacekeeping mission. "Moderate" Rouhani also takes public credit for suckering the Americans long enough to build 17,000 working uranium centrifuges someplace in Iran.

In brief, none of Obama's actions have served our country and our allies.
Judging by five years of Obama foreign policy, he is radically anti-American, just like all his friends. This is all of a piece with Obama's domestic contempt for the Constitution, as shown in his flaming abuse of the IRS, the FBI, the NSA, EPA, DOJ and who knows what else.

We've got the fox in our chicken house.

Fortunately, this particular fox has a fixed habit of trying to gnaw its own tail off.
Should Americans hold their breath and hope he keeps failing?
Obama is a blunderer. He is arrogant and ideologically blind, so he always acts in an overconfident way that ignores realities on the ground. Obama routinely gets suckered by the rug merchants of Persia and the chess players of Russia.

In some weird way this means we might survive him after all.

Here are some specifics.

1. In Egypt Obama was directly involved in stirring up the vaunted "Arab Spring," which was a gambit to bring the radical Muslim Brotherhood to power. In the end, modernist Egyptians rebelled against the MBs, and today our friend Brother Morsi is awaiting trial for inciting the murder of Egyptian civilians.

2. In Libya, Obama's Ambassador Christopher Stevens helped to whip up a rebellion against Muammar Gadaffi, helped by direct US and NATO bombing. Yet Gadaffi had kept the peace in Libya for decades, and had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush Administration. He posed no danger to us. The Libyan adventure was a blatant double-cross of Gadaffi.

Obama's bizarre Libyan policy was exposed in the Benghazi fiasco. Ambassador Stevens was in bandit country of Benghazi, far from the capital of Tripoli, supervising CIA arms shipments of Libyan arms to the Al Qaida rebels in Syria. He made alliances with Al Qaida gangs, who ended up stabbing him in the back, the way they always do.

In the end the Qaida types got away with burning the CIA "annex" on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11/01, a symbolic date if ever there was one. They also bagged 400 ground-to-air missiles, which can be used to shoot down civilian airliners for years to come.

Benghazi was a huge defeat for the Obama "policy," and it ended up exposing him just before the last election. That is why it had to be covered up by a bizarre pack of lies that no sane observer believed. 

Benghazi exposed Obama's pro-Jihadist policy for all the world to see.

It was a sad day for America, but it was worse for Obama's anti-American shenanigans. Benghazi was the beginning of public exposure for radical ideologue Obama, the man who suckered us in two presidential elections.

Both Egypt and Libya were Obama gambits to shaft our allies and support our enemies in the Jihad War. Whether his inner cult figured they were splitting the enemy, or whether they were simply running a subversive anti-American policy, is hard to tell. In any case, the American people need to know the truth, and Congressional hearings are the only way they ever will.

Now comes today's Syria fiasco.

3. In Syria, Obama allied with Turkey and Saudi money men to stir up a Sunni revolt against Assad. The Assads, father and son, are pretty evil, as we know by now. But they are not worse than the Al Qaida maniacs who seem to be running the "Free Syrian Army." Assad at least promised stability. Al Qaida doesn't believe in stability.

We are therefore facing a lose-lose situation in Syria. If Assad wins, the Iranians will threaten U.S. allies including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

So we lose in Syria -- no matter which side wins.

How's that for brilliant American statesmanship?

A few weeks ago this column warned that Obama was getting trapped in Syria. Today the trap has snapped shut, and Obama's self-inflicted wounds are making headlines around the world. And while he is trying to evade the consequences of his folly by making the U.S. Congress responsible, in fact this is the fifth year of Obama's overreach and the resulting failures.

So here is Obama's score-sheet:
1. Egypt: Massive overreach and failure.
2. Libya: Massive overreach and anarchy, plus the Benghazi fiasco.
3. Syria: Another overreach and a classical lose-lose trap.

But here's the real kicker.

Obama's failures may be good for America and for the world. I can't remember a time when a major foreign policy defeat looked like good news for the United States. But then I can't remember a time when a president was so perversely anti-American.

In these strange times, Obama's five years of overreach and defeat in the Muslim world must be considered good news for civilization.

American Thinker

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons

Paul Joseph Watson
September 5, 2013

A video has emerged of an opposition rebel militant in Syria apparently confessing to using chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin Laden’s mantra of killing women and children.

The individual in the clip, Nadeem Baloosh, is a member of an insurgent group called Riyadh Al Abdeen, which is active in the Latakia area of Syria.

Baloosh speaks of “chemicals which produce lethal and deadly gases that I possess,” before going on to state, “We decided to harm them through their women and kids.”
Baloosh ponders if it is acceptable to harm women and children before quoting the Koran, “Fight them as they fight you. ” He goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden (whom other rebel groups have openly praised).

“We’ll kill their women and children like Sheikh Osama Bin Laden said – “until they cease killing our women and kids,” he states.

Baloosh goes on to talk about the Syrian Army approaching the area where his rebel group was located, before stating, “So we had the idea that this weapon was very powerful and effective to repel them, we announced if they approached one meter, everything is permitted.”

“We will strike them in their homes, we will turn their day into night and their night into day,” adds Baloosh.

The footage adds to the increasing weight of evidence that suggests US-backed rebels possess and have used chemical weapons on more than one occasion, although such reports have been habitually downplayed by the mainstream media.

Earlier today Russia announced that it had compiled a 100 page report proving opposition rebels “were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.”
Carla Del Ponte, the leading member of the UN inquiry into the attack, which happened in March, told Swiss TV that there existed “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that rebels were responsible for the atrocity.

As we highlighted last week, Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to a reporter that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Despite the fact that the report was written by credible Associated Press and BBC correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has received virtually zero mainstream attention.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer. Footage was also leaked showing opposition militants testing what appeared to be nerve agents on laboratory rabbits.

There are also multiple other videos which apparently show US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.