MSNBC commentators rebuked the Obama administration for its blatant “secrecy” and “lies” behind the horrific Obamacare online exchanges, saying the rollout has been “almost criminal.”

“The rollout is unacceptable,” Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin accused on “Morning Joe.” “The secrecy is unacceptable. It begins with not saying how many people have enrolled. I don’t understand why they can’t release that figure on a rolling basis.”

“But in addition, you search in vain for answers to lots of questions. … Reporters have asked them every day for basic information. When governments are in crisis, they withhold information, and sometimes they don’t tell the truth,” he said.

The panel agreed that the administration’s attempts to explain away the problem as a website developer issue have been unacceptable.

“I’m not being ideological,” host Joe Scarborough said. “These people want to run our health care system, and they want to be the grand organizers of what’s most important to most Americans over the age of 35 or 40. And yet they’re not telling us what’s going wrong with our system that they want to run?”

Journalist Mike Barnicle jumped in to accuse the administration of “lying” about the Obamacare enrollments figures.

“They’re lying about it now,” Barnicle said. “They’re not depriving us of information, they are outright lying … about the numbers of who have enrolled, the numbers who have made the process complete, the numbers of people who have actually signed up, a couple others things. The larger point is they keep using the word, ‘unacceptable.’ This is not unacceptable, this is outrageous.”

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein agreed that the exchange failures have been unacceptable, adding that someone is going to be held responsible.

“Up until recently, they didn’t realize how bad this was going to go out,” Stein said. “No one beta-tested the site, which is almost criminal, when you think about it. The president was caught off-guard, which is really unfortunate and also really kind of messed up.”

“So you need someone who brings accountability to the process; I wouldn’t be surprised if a few people lost their jobs. But this starts with basically explaining to Congress and to the American public what went wrong. I think that’s a very low bar for the administration to hit,” he said.

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Americans first rebelled against the tyranny of an unresponsive, lawless government that imposed its megalithic will on the people, by declaring war and fighting the American Revolution (see our treatise on the Founding herein).

The purpose of the break with Great Britain was clearly outlined in the Declaration of Independence (from Britain):

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Declaration of Independence.

The “causes” for the separation and the underlying principles upon which the emerging nation must be built were then “declared”:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

As the Founders constructed a new national government, they did so with the goal of bonding the 13 American colonies into a single, unified nation. The benefit of becoming united would be better defense against common enemies, plus a larger, unified, robust economic system. The engine that would build and drive the emerging nation would be individual liberty, nurtured and protected by the governments tasked with upholding and enforcing the new Constitution.

The citizens of the 13 colonies were less enthusiastic about the prospect of a national government, because they did not desire to replace one tyrant with another—they were very focused on the principles of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and all they implied. To allay the fears of the colonists, the Founders built safeguards into the Constitution of the new nation that would forever ensure that the national government could not grow beyond its statutory restraints; thus never becoming the governmental equivalent of King George (the Founding), whom they had repelled at the cost of their most precious blood.

George Washington said it best:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

This sums up the foundational philosophy upon which the Constitution of the United States of America was constructed.

This was the prevailing attitude among America’s founders, and its citizens, who had witnessed the blood of 25,000 spilt in breaking the shackles of Great Britain’s government. They were very much of the opinion that government is indeed a monster, to be kept in chains, to be limited with every restraint available . . . because if left to itself, it will feed, and grow, and take, and pillage, until it is the master and the people who created it are the slaves.

The best form that the new government should take was richly debated among the people and by the Founders, and several scholarly papers were presented in the national press, and are now collected into The Federalist Papers. Many of the Founders further warned that securing the personal liberty afforded by a Constitutionally-based government might be easier than maintaining it, as expressed so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

With this in mind, the new national government was established.  It was made up of three separate branches; the executive, the legislative and the judicial, each tasked with checking or limiting the powers of the other—to ensure that it never reached beyond its modest initial mandate. Although it is clear that the rights of individual citizens and the states were to never be further burdened or infringed by the national government, tyrants have reappeared, and have diluted the shackles of the Constitution to the point that the national government has overgrown our nation and overshadowed its citizens with its all-encompassing powers.

With the breakdown of the checks-and-balances system in American government, and the coup d’état of the current Executive Branch (Marxist) over the other two branches of government, many in America feel it is indeed time for Jefferson’s instructive imperative to be revisited.

Has this country truly reached the point where the citizens of the states must retake the national government and again pare its powers to just those few enumerated by the Constitution (see list of enumerated federal powers in Founding)?  There is no doubt that those who currently wield power in the federal government have entirely abandoned the Constitution of the United States, and are usurping the government of the people with their own tyrannical, totalitarian form of rule.

If those who love liberty do rise up against this tyranny, how will they do it? Who will fire the first salvo? What form will it take? Who will lead it?

If not us, then who? If not now, then when? – John Lewis

Will it be you?

Who are the American patriots who will step forward and restore the personal liberties that are being pried from the hands of America’s citizens? How much longer can free men stand by and watch the destruction of their liberty and culture? Who will step forward? Every member of the U.S. military is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Perhaps they should lead the fight, with our blessing. If they are unwilling to start it, they may be more than willing to support it once underway.

America is waiting for you.

PUBLIUS

The good news: The national parks are open, furloughed federal workers are back on the job, and the country will not cut off benefit payments because it can’t borrow.

The bad news: The national debt is back on course to hit $17 trillion any day now, with no deal in sight to ever reverse the climb.

The latest increase in the debt cap is the sixth since President Obama took office, when the debt was $10.6 trillion. It was raised three times when Democrats controlled Congress, and has been raised three times since Republicans took control of the House.

Fiscal conservatives and government watchdog groups reacted with dismay Thursday after Washington, following weeks of hard-nosed negotiations, produced only a stopgap bill to end the partial government shutdown and raise that cap. And despite the chaos of the past few weeks, they are once again trying to refocus Washington on the need to — seriously — lasso the nation’s debt and break the habit of endless over-spending.

“Both houses should act quickly to stop the madness,” said Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Budget and the Campaign to Fix the Debt. While voicing relief that the partial shutdown is over, she called the last-minute deal “incredibly disheartening,” describing the debt as a “fire” that could “get out of control at any moment.”

Republicans have been modestly emboldened in their push for spending cuts after the dire consequences that administration officials said would emerge from the so-called sequester, in large part, did not happen. Even the partial government shutdown had a limited impact on the country.

Obama, while urging both sides to come together on a new budget agreement in the coming weeks that addresses the nation’s fiscal problems, on Thursday also downplayed the red ink.

“The deficit is getting smaller, not bigger,” Obama said.

That’s true. But, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said: “You still have an unsustainable problem in place.”

Since Obama took office, the total national debt has risen by nearly 60 percent. It was $10.6 trillion on the day he took office. It was $16.7 trillion when the nation technically hit the debt ceiling.

But, even during that period, the Treasury racked up another $200 billion in debt, borrowing from various U.S. funds to buy more time while Congress debated. As the New York Post explained Thursday, the debt is actually at $16.9 trillion.

So what do numbers so impossible to comprehend mean for the United States?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a rather dire warning last month about what the future holds if the trajectory is not changed.

The analysis explained how the government has been expanding at historic rates. Between 2009 and 2012, it said, deficits were larger relative to the size of the economy than at any point since 1946 — in turn fueling the rapid growth in the debt.

Deficits are projected to fall for the next few years, but then rise again, in large part because of two major factors — interest on the debt, and entitlement programs.

The growth of the debt has triggered a vicious cycle, where higher debt leads to bigger interest payments, in turn growing the debt even more.

The CBO estimates that by 2038, interest on the debt will rise to 5 percent of GDP — compared against a modern historical average of 2 percent. That means less money in the federal coffers for everything from the military to benefits programs.

But the biggest benefits programs, known in Washington as entitlements, are the dominant factor.

Programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are poised to eat up more and more of the federal budget. The CBO says the share of spending on those programs will double by 2038, to 14 percent of GDP. As a consequence, spending on everything else will drop.

Obama said Thursday that longer-term deficits do need to be addressed, and that budget negotiators need to focus on programs like Medicare and Social Security.

But Rubio said the problem is Obama has resisted major changes to any of those programs, due in part to resistance from the liberal base.

Let’s think about this. I go to buy a car for my wife. I walk onto the lot and pick one that is worth $20k, but is listed for $25k. I tell the salesman that I will pay only $10k. We negotiate and I end up giving in and paying $20k. I come in a few months later to buy a car for my son. He wants the same car that my wife has and the price is still $25k. Knowing that I paid $20k last time, I tell the salesman that I am willing to pay $20k again. But this time he says no, he’s standing firm. We negotiate and I end up paying $22k. Now my daughter wants a car and I go back in for the third time, same make and model. Knowing what I paid last time, I decide to offer $22k, not a penny more. But, as before, the salesman demands $25k. We split the difference and I pay $23.5k.

So here’s the question. Who is the strongest negotiator? The salesman who starts every negation with everything he wants and settles for less and less of a discount with each transaction or, me who begins each negotiation with what I settled for last time, instead of starting each negation episode with everything I want, the car for $10k and settle for paying $20k?

As simplistic as this might be, this is exactly what has been happening for years in Washington DC. The Democrats come to DC demanding everything they want. The Republicans’ point of departure for renewed (or continued) negotiation is to ask for no more than what they got last time, forgetting what their voters originally wanted.

I heard a sour grapes interview with former senator Bob Bennett recently. He was criticizing his replacement, Mike Lee and others, for “hostage taking.” He explained that in ‘his day’ people went to Washington to “look for ways to get something done.” That’s right Bob, but what we wanted was for you to remember WHAT we, the voters, want done. You didn’t do that. The American people are tired of sending politicians to Washington who say WHAT they will do while campaigning and later return to us with some version of, “it’s harder than I thought it was going to be.” From that point forward it seems that their main focus becomes HOW to get things done. Understandable, but wrong. While we certainly want our elected officials to be effective in their efforts, the “how” does not equal the “what.” It’s discouraging to see old guard Republicans trash the freshman class of Senators (i.e. Lee, Cruz, Rand, etc.) because of their “how,” disregarding their “what.”

To the Republican Establishment: THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT OBAMACARE! It will destroy the country. We want you to do whatever it takes, within the law, to get rid of it. Stop talking about the good old days of statesmanship, compromise and good will among your colleagues within the Halls of Congress. The opposition has already declared war on us. Stop acting as if their positions are reasonable, just different than ours. They’re not. If Obamacare stands the economy will be irretrievably damaged—decimated. Don’t tell us that risking the “full-faith and credit” of the United States is too high a price. The implementation of Obamacare will do that anyway. We want our representatives to STOP Obamacare, not just slow its implementation.

One more point. Whenever I talk with republican operatives, it sickens me to hear them talk about Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and others as party interlopers or as individuals who didn’t “come up through the ranks the right way.” One such republican operative recently told me that Mike Lee took advantage of a flawed caucus system in Utah and was therefore able to unseat Bob Bennett. Her criticism of Lee centered on the idea that he has not spent the time building enough trust within the party to be effective. She further pointed out that what the party needs is someone who has a demonstrated ability to “build coalitions” that will facilitate “getting things done.”

My response: by staying focused on WHAT his constituents want instead of getting hoodwinked by the opposition into believing that “HOW we do things in the Senate” should be the focus, he is building a broad-base coalition on a foundation of trust among the VOTERS. Others within the party would do well to stop criticizing him, stop helping the opposition party, and stand with him as he endeavors to represent the people who sent him to Washington to get rid of Obamacare and otherwise return the nation to a Constitution based government.

Forget the “how” and stay focused on the “what.” The “how” will become self-evident as we go along. The only thing required then is to have the courage to exercise the “how” in pursuit of the “what.”

Mike Lee has my support and my respect.

by John Bingham

Excerpts from a 398-diary belonging to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have been published by the NY Post, exposing some of the heir’s sexual conquests and political rivalries, and we’ve got all the details for you right here on RadarOnline.com.

The journal keeps track of RFK Jr.’s goings-ons in the year 2001, and he kept a detailed log of his lovers in that time (during his marriage to the late Mary Richardson Kennedy). He kept a number key to classify how far his sexual encounters went, with the number 10 signifying intercourse, the paper reported, citing a source close to his late ex-wife.

In the diary, Robert, now 59, named 37 women, giving 16 of them “10″ codes. The paper reported that the handsome Kennedy heir’s lovers included “a lawyer, an environmental activist, a doctor and at least one woman married to a famous actor.”

On days he did not cheat on his wife, the guilt-racked Kennedy — who referred to his raging libido as his “lust demons” — would submit an entry simply stating “Victory.”

He wrote on Nov. 5, less than two months after 9/11: “Despite the terrible things happening in the world, my life is … great. So I’ve been looking for ways to screw it up. I’m like Adam and live in Eden, and I can have everything but the fruit. But the fruit is all I want.”

Richardson hanged herself at 52 on May 16, 2012.

In other entries, RFK Jr. surprisingly takes some shots at political colleagues, including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is his brother-in-law; Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Kennedy predicted Cuomo could fail at his (then-unsuccessful) gubernatorial campaign “because he lacks humanity and doesn’t love people,” and “is not a retail politician.”

He said that Sharpton and Jackson “give [him] the creeps,” adding that Sharpton “has suffocated the decent black leaders in New York. His transparent venal blackmail and extortion schemes taint all black leadership.”

Kennedy said that Jackson possessed “a desperate and destructive addiction to publicity,” recalling an incident at Cesar Chavez’s funeral when Jackson pushed “Cesar’s friends and family out of the way to make himself lead pall bearer.”

“His love affair with Louis Farrakhan and his Jewish xenophobia are also unforgivable,” he added of Jackson. “I feel dirty around him, and I feel like I’m being used. I feel like with Jesse, it’s all about Jesse.”

Asked about the diary’s existence by the paper on Friday, the political heir did his best to distance himself from the salacious tome.

“I don’t think there is any way you could have a diary or journal of mine from 2001,” Kennedy told the paper. “I don’t have any comment on it. I have no diary from 2001.”

He later changed his statement in an e-mail, saying the diary was “illegally stolen” from him.

“The diary served as a tool for self-examination and for dealing with my spiritual struggles at the time. It also contains unedited, unfiltered stream-of-consciousness musings about current events and people.’ Nothing in that diary was ever meant for publication.

“I have nothing but respect for Governor Cuomo, Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all of whom have distinguished themselves as extraordinary national leaders over the past decade.”

RadarOnline / By radarstaff

PROVO, UTAH  For generations the United States of America has been widely considered the hope of the world. Because our system of government allowed us to freely think, become, do and have, we have been the envy of good people everywhere. Americans were considered to be pioneers, problem solvers, can-do types who possessed the qualities of courage, creativity, work ethic and personal accountability. Collectively, these things were at the very heart of the American character. America was synonymous with freedom and stability in growth. These are just a few of the reasons that for many years the US dollar has been the peg currency of the world.

However, what the world has seen over the last few years is the rapid decline of American character. A growing percentage of Americans are willing to give up their freedom in exchange for proffered security. As politicians promise all kinds of goodies in exchange for power and as American citizens accept that exchange, the very freedom that allows for the development and maintenance of the American character in a rising generation is being lost.

People the world over know very well what awaits Americans at the end of the path we are now on. They know because they have, in their past, and are now living with the consequences of empowering kings, monarchs, magistrates and savvy individuals. Without the checks and balances of a democratically elected republican form of government, as envisioned and provided by our Founding Fathers, the aforementioned ruling individuals are never more than an election away from becoming socialists, communists, fascists, dictators and despots. An early signal that the transition has begun is when duly elected officials cease to respond to the voice of their constituents and begin to pass laws that benefit (or exempt) the very few in leadership while burdening the people . . . and the voting public allows it. It’s happening now in the United States of America and the people of the world are seeing it.

If Americans exemplify to the world that we are no longer willing (or able) to solve our problems through peaceful debate and the fair elections of leaders who will listen to and be responsive to their constituents, we will loose the confidence of people the world over. It won’t be long thereafter that nations will reject America as an example of how things could be for them and see America as having nothing better to offer than what they now have.

There will be additional pressure exerted upon those who traffic in international financial circles to throw out the American dollar as the world’s currency peg and replace it with a basket of other currencies that are ‘just as good.’ When that happens, the value of the dollar will drop out of sight. The domino effect on nation after nation throughout the world will create a global depression like the world has never seen.

Think it can’t happen? Only those who are either completely ignorant of historical fact, are egotistically and intellectually dishonest, or believe that they will emerge as members of the new ruling class of ‘haves’ verses the ‘have-nots’ will deny the possibility of such an occurrence.

The world is watching. We have the 2014 mid-term elections and the general election of 2016. Again, the world is watching. What will we put on display? Are we willing, as a people to remove from office those who will not listen to the people? Or, will we once again show the world that we can be bought by shallow campaign promises, trading our freedoms and personal accountability for what we think will make us safe and secure.

The world is watching. What will they see?

by John Bingham

A series of videos produced for the National Park Service shows American Muslim students blaming hatred against their faith on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The videos also promoted Islam as a pioneer in women’s rights and addressed a “general ignorance about what Islam is.”

“Islam within itself, Islam itself means peace,” the government video states. “Islam brings nothing but peace if you truly look into it.”

The video was posted on the website for the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. It was filmed at the AnNur Islamic School in Schenectady, N.Y. by a National Park Service intern. According to the park’s website, the three-part series features children as they “discuss their experiences and challenges with negative Muslim stereotypes and assumptions.”

“Since 9/11 happened – before there wasn’t that much hate against Muslims, but since 9/11 happened people saw that and that was a big thing because a lot of people died,” a student said in the video. “They just started believing this is what they do. This is what they know. This is what they’re supposed to do. This is what their holy book tells them. This is what their Prophet told them. They think that ever since.”

The National Park Service tells me no federal taxpayer dollars were spent on the production of the videos. They said the funding came through a donation from the Friends of Women’s Rights National Historical Park.

“The videos are part of the park’s ongoing effort to share the story of the women’s rights movement and show that the fights for human and civil rights – including the freedom to worship – are struggles that continue to this day,” chief spokesman Mike Litterst said.

The National Park Service did not respond to questions about whether they’ve produced videos promoting other religions – like Christianity or Judaism.

The video praised Islam’s treatment of women – while completely ignoring the violence and discrimination many women are still facing in modern-day Islamic nations.

“People think that Islam oppresses women and there’s no equality but they’re wrong,” one student said. “There’s equity.”

The students said that in Seventh Century A.D. Islam gave women the right to be involved in politics, the right to earn and keep their money and the right to work outside the home.

“Islam gave women the right to own property, Islam gave women the right to divorce, Islam gave women the right to choose who she marries,” a student said.

Another added, “Islam gave women a whole bunch of rights that western women acquired later in the 19th and 20th centuries and we’ve had these rights since the 7th Century A.D. and it’s just not acknowledged worldwide.”

Most of the videos showed images of students sitting in a classroom defending their faith and talking about how Muslims are persecuted for their beliefs in America.

“People always say, ‘You’re Muslims. Go back to your country,’” one student said. “I mean, this is the land of the Native Americans. Everyone should go back to their country if you think about it.”

Another student blamed public perceptions about Islam on a “general ignorance about what Islam is.”

“A lot of people are against us so they’d do anything to make us look bad,” one of the youngsters said. “We’re all human beings. Just because we have a different religion doesn’t mean that we’re all difference from others.”

The videos spent considerable time on the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and how perceptions of Islam changed.

“Islam means peace, too,” a student said. ‘So we all just want to be peaceful with everybody.”
They said the main reason that non-Muslims generalize Islam is because of how the media portrays their faith.

“We’re supposed to represent our religion at all times,” a student said. “That’s something that the Prophet and God ordained on us. But especially after 9/11 we have to be super careful how we act around people, definitely watch what we say.”

The students all agreed that the terrorist attacks had something to do with how they are perceived.

“A lot of people from Christianity and Judaism and a whole bunch of other religions – a lot of them have done stuff wrong, but especially if it’s Muslim, they think of it as we’re terrorists,” one student said.

“If a Christian man does something or a Jewish man does something or an atheist man does something, nobody ever blames their religion,” another student said. “But if you see a Muslim man doing something, their religion is blamed when Islam brings nothing but peace when you truly look into it.”

Erwin Lutzer, the author of “The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent,” told me he is quite alarmed that the National Park Service would endorse videos that seem to rewrite history.

“Islam has a very poor record when it comes to the rights of women,” Lutzer told me. “In Ontario in 2004, when the premier said Sharia law should be practiced in Muslim enclaves, it was the women from Muslim countries who joined others to oppose it. (They) said Sharia law is legalized violence against women.”

Lutzer said he was puzzled as to why the National Park Service would commend Muslims on this particular issue. He said it has no historical basis whatsoever.

“If you look at the history of Islam, there was no such thing as equal rights between men and women,” he said. “We must be very careful here when history is sometimes made out of thin air.”

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary heard on hundreds of radio stations and in his weekly podcast. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter and be sure to join his Facebook page.

President Obama plans to call for a “pause” Tuesday night in the push for a congressional vote on military action in Syria, senior administration officials told Fox News, as the president waits to see if an emerging diplomatic option can work.

The early details of the president’s national address show he is continuing to back off his “red line” threat to take military action against President Bashar Assad’s regime for its use of chemical weapons. Though his Secretary of State, John Kerry, seemed to push for a congressional vote during testimony on Capitol Hill earlier in the day, officials said Obama is now hitting “pause” on that process.

The pause comes as Kerry plans to meet with his Russian counterpart in Geneva on Thursday to discuss a proposal to have Syria turn over its chemical weapons stockpile to international control.

The administration claims it wants to find out quickly whether this proposal is serious.

Administration officials clarified that Obama is not canceling the congressional votes; but rather, wants to slow them down. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid already has postponed a Wednesday test vote on whether to authorize military force.

One official described the administration’s current approach as a two-track plan – setting up potential votes for military force on the Hill, while also pursuing the diplomatic track.

Another official said that during Tuesday’s meetings on Capitol Hill Obama “indicated a desire to pursue the diplomatic option that was put forward yesterday by the Russians.”

He said the president said his administration would spend the days ahead “pursuing this diplomatic option with the Russians and our allies at the United Nations” while his administration worked with members of Congress on authorizing language.

Administration officials also claimed the White House has been working on the chemical weapons hand-over idea with the Russians for up to year. According to the officials, Kerry did accidentally let the news out on Monday – when he appeared to make an off-handed comment that Assad could avert a strike by turning over his weapons. Kerry immediately walked back the remark.

The officials said that because Russia then openly agreed to the idea, the president is willing to see if this will work. If not, officials said, the White House will still pursue a military course.

No matter what course the administration takes, the president was being challenged from all sides Tuesday — with Russia’s Vladimir Putin pressuring Obama to drop his call for a military strike and members of the Syrian opposition warning that a newly emerging diplomatic option would only play into Assad’s hands.

In Russia, Putin reportedly needled the Obama administration to abandon the military option. Putin said the only way diplomacy can work is if “we hear that the American side and all those who support the United States in this sense reject the use of force,” according to Reuters.

But the diplomatic option was running into early obstacles, as an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council was suddenly called off, after Russia withdrew its request.

And members of the Syrian opposition and others voiced concern that the chemical weapons plan is indeed turning into a “stall” tactic that will allow the Assad regime to escalate conventional warfare on its own people.

Among the most outspoken since the emergence Monday of a potential U.S.-Russia plan has been the Syrian Coalition — a leader in the nearly three-year-long effort to oust Assad.

“It is vital to remember that the Assad regime, notwithstanding its use of chemical weapons, continues to use all kinds of conventional weapons against innocent women and children,” said the group, formally known as the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. “The Assad regime, which has butchered people with knives and burnt them alive, has exhausted all time limits over the past two-and-a-half years.”

More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the civil war, including an estimated 1,400 in the sarin-gas attack last month that prompted Obama to conclude on Aug. 31 that the United States should launch a punitive strike and ask for congressional support.

The diplomatic plan appeared to emerge Monday morning in London when Kerry said Assad has a long-shot possibility of avoiding a strike by surrendering the weapons. The plan was promptly endorsed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and by Monday night Obama appeared to make the idea part of his evolving foreign policy.

“I welcome the possibility of the development,” the president told Fox News. “And John Kerry will be talking to his Russian counterparts. I think we should explore and exhaust all avenues of diplomatic resolution of this. But I think it’s important for us to keep the pressure on.”

Syria’s foreign minister embraced the proposal to turn over chemical weapons, saying Tuesday that Syria would declare its chemical weapons arsenal and sign the chemical weapons convention. Kerry, though, said Syria should “go further.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain — among Capitol Hill’s most outspoken supporters of efforts to end the Assad regime — said Tuesday he was “very skeptical” about the proposed diplomatic solution, considering Assad had refused to acknowledge having chemical weapons.

Still, he said Congress should wait on deciding on a military strike until the possibility of a U.N. resolution on controlling Assad’s chemical weapons “plays out.”

“To not pursue this option would be a mistake,” McCain told CBS News before making clear he still thinks the best strategy is military support for Assad opposition forces to help overthrow the government.

Meanwhile, Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, a member of the Select Intelligence Committee, told FoxNews.com LIVE’s “Power Play” on Tuesday the United States should still strike because the Syrian uprising is a national security concern.

“I don’t trust the president to execute this plan well,” he said. “It’s why I wanted to engage. I was over at the White House yesterday. We had a very direct conversation about what the president ought to say tonight. But more importantly, what the president ought to do if he were to engage militarily in Syria. It’s not enough to fire a couple missiles.”

Many in Congress, though, are against any U.S. military action in Syria. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday joined those opposing a strike. It’s not clear whether Congress will take up a resolution to authorize the use of force.

Earlier in the day, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed there was no need for a congressional vote.

“It is not necessary for Congress to give the president this authority,” Pelosi said. “We are grateful that he has asked for it but if he sees an opportunity we don’t want the Russians to think that his leverage is diminished because of a vote (that) may or may not succeed within the Congress.”

The push-back from Washington and Moscow poses a challenge for Obama, as he finds himself caught between two very different paths on Syria — a missile strike that potentially drags the U.S. into a bloody civil war, and a diplomatic solution that would likely do little to end that war.

The momentum, at least temporarily, appeared to be running in favor of the diplomatic course.

On Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of eight senators started writing an alternative resolution that would call on the United Nations to state that Syria used chemical weapons and require a U.N. team to remove the chemical weapons from Syria within a specific time period, possibly 60 days. If that can’t be done, then Obama would have the authority to launch military strikes, congressional aides said.