SO THAT WE NEVER FORGET
The Fundamental Transformation of America
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
people said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign as other candidates had done,
people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten including homosexual indoctrination,
people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question and he refused to produce a birth certificate,
people said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character,
who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and Trade as the nations largest tax,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
people said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.
people said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
people said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States
through Cap and Trade,
people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State,
people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, or Iran; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington, DC.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Courtroom Clowns vs Jihad
Courtroom Cirque du Jihad
by Michelle Malkin
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al-Qaida defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al-Qaida suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al-Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al-Qaida operative, financier and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al-Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks and bridges, and to poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C., area. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Ghazni in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
-- Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
-- Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
-- Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
-- Blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady al-Qaida is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human-rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia Abu-Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Aafia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al-Qaida training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card -- from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqui trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose who is mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al-Qaida P.R. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multimillion-dollar tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10, 15, 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals -- at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers -- threatens to throw our civilian court system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
by Michelle Malkin
Imagine this nightmare courtroom scenario: Unhinged Jew-bashing, open mockery of American soldiers, juror intimidation and coldly calculated exploitation of U.S. constitutional protections by a suspected al-Qaida defendant. Well, there’s no need to wait for the Gitmo terror trial circuses. New York City is already getting a glimpse of the future.
Jihadi scientist Aafia Siddiqui is on trial right now in a federal Manhattan court for the attempted murder and assault of U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province two years ago. She’s an accomplished Karachi-born scientist who studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis University before disappearing in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Counterterrorism investigators connected Siddiqui and her estranged husband, anesthesiologist Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, to Saudi terror funders. The couple’s bank account showed repeated purchases of high-tech military equipment and apparel, including body armor, night-vision goggles and military manuals. Her second husband, fellow al-Qaida suspect and 9/11 plot helper Ammar al-Baluchi, is one of five Gitmo detainees the Obama administration is planning to transfer to New York for trial.
Siddiqui was identified as an al-Qaida operative, financier and fixer by no less than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during U.S. interrogations. Al-Baluchi is KSM’s nephew. Mohammed reportedly enlisted Siddiqui in a Baltimore-based plot to bomb gas stations, fuel tanks and bridges, and to poison water reservoirs in the greater Washington, D.C., area. Siddiqui was taken into custody in Ghazni in July 2008 after attempting to shoot U.S. military interrogators and FBI agents.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
-- Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
-- Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
-- Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
-- Blurting out “I feel sorry for you” to the witness in front of the jury before being led out of the courtroom again.
Siddiqui’s defense team, funded in part by the Pakistani government, asserts that Lady al-Qaida is so mentally ga-ga that she should not be allowed to take the witness stand. Bleeding-heart human-rights groups have dutifully rallied around Siddiqui. She’s Mumia Abu-Jamal in a burqa. Indeed, her supporters have launched their own “Free Aafia” campaign. But two government-retained psychiatrists, working independently, determined last year that Siddiqui’s so-called symptoms of mental illness were attributed to “malingering” and “manipulation.” The judge in the case concluded that she is competent and understands full well the charges against her.
The Crazy Jihadi tactic is in perfect sync with the al-Qaida training manual advising its operatives to claim victimhood status if arrested and put on trial. This act is also in keeping with a long tradition of terror defendants invoking the insanity card -- from “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui (whose lawyers chalked up his mass-murdering ambitions to a traumatic childhood) to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan (whose defense will undoubtedly play up his lonely bachelorhood).
To make matters worse, the New York Post reported this week that an “unidentified man in a white headdress” mouthed an obscenity at the Siddiqui trial and cocked his finger like a gun at two jurors. The jurors were let go; it remains unclear whether the thug in white headdress will be charged and what relation, if any, he has to Siddiqui.
Would you answer a jury summons knowing you could end up sitting in front of a jihadi sympathizer on the loose who is mentally painting a target on your forehead? And would you trust the White House ringmasters and Justice Department terror-coddlers to protect you from harm?
These suspects belong in controlled military tribunals, not federal courtrooms that are being turned into al-Qaida P.R. platforms. The O.J. Simpson spectacle of a smirking murder suspect, preening defense attorneys, a showboating judge and the judicial process run amok on cable TV 24/7 was bad enough. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial, which gave the bin Laden network a multimillion-dollar tax-subsidized legal team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, race-baiting defense witnesses and access to information that was allegedly used by jihadists to evade surveillance, was even worse.
The specter of 10, 15, 20 Siddiqui-style courtroom carnivals -- at a cost of at least $1 billion to taxpayers -- threatens to throw our civilian court system into complete chaos. America can’t afford to clown around with national security.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Socialism vs Constitution
State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
By Mark Alexander
"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
The ObamaPrompter
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Correct.
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
By Mark Alexander
"The duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people." --Justice Joseph Story
The ObamaPrompter
In the wake of Barack Hussein Obama's first State of the Union address, much of the critical analysis from Republicans posited that he should do "this" instead of "that."
Unfortunately, when there is no more constitutional authority for a president to do this rather than that, Republicans fail to distinguish themselves from Democrats since both parties are then advocating unlawful extra-constitutional policies.
Obama's SOTU teleprompters fed him a steady stream of poll-tested rhetoric, none of which comports with the authority granted the Executive Branch, unless, of course, one subscribes to the adulterated "living constitution" as amended by judicial diktat.
Predictably, Obama offered only Socialist solutions to all ills, and not a single suggestion that individual responsibility or the private sector economy should shoulder that burden, at least not without government "incentives," a.k.a. centralized social and economic planning.
In 6,200 words (second longest SOTU after Bill Clinton -- two narcissists who just can't hear enough of themselves), Obama referred to himself repeatedly, and alleged that he was the anointed spokesman for "we," the American people, more than 100 times.
On the other hand, he mentioned the Constitution only twice.
First, in his opening remarks Obama said, "Our Constitution declares that from time to time the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union."
Correct.
Second, he asserted, "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..."
As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, -- that "notion" was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error.
Our Constitution is devoted to clearly delineating the limited role of the central government from the unlimited rights of the states and the people.
To that end, James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Accordingly, Obama mentions freedom only once, and made absolutely no reference to liberty.
Nowhere in our Constitution is there any authority or provision for these key proposals from Obama's SOTU:
1. The power to further centralize regulation of our economy.
2. The power to completely regulate our national health care system. (Note: both the Democrat and Republican proposals lack constitutional authority). Obama even repeated his claim that the American people are just not smart enough to get on board: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
3. The power to further regulate and tax the production of CO2.
Obama reiterated his claims that the current recession was caused by "Wall Street," and then went on to insist that the only hope for ending the recession was government "investment," a euphemism for taxing money out of the private sector, taking bureaucratic handling fees out, then giving it to political constituencies.
To correctly interpret Obama's SOTU, you need only filter everything he says through his foremost pledge that the his administration's charge is the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America."
That is a line Obama lifted from the primary architect of his Socialist platform, Robert Creamer, who had earlier proclaimed, "If Barack Obama is elected president, then we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform American politics and the economy."
It's likely that you've never heard of Bob Creamer, because Barack Obama is very adept at concealing his association with his Marxist patrons.
In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others.
Creamer is a member of Obama's Chicago mob, a fellow "community organizer" and disciple of Saul Alinsky. Like all of Obama's Chicago benefactors, Creamer believes that he is above the law, or, more appropriately, that he is the law in today's age of the rule of men. But like Tony Rezko, another of Obama's slick Chicago political backers, Creamer was caught with his hand in the till and was convicted of a felony (bank fraud) back in 2004 when Obama was a state senator. Creamer got a softball sentence, though: five months in a minimum-security facility for white-collar criminals and another 11 months of house arrest.
With all that time on his hands, Creamer authored a book, "How Progressives Can Win," which, along with Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," serves as the template for Obama's campaign to "fundamentally transform" America.
Obama didn't use the word "transform" in his SOTU, but he did insist that government must "lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth," under the pretense of "reform," in order to "give our people the government they deserve."
"I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in. I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe that I can deliver it. I never suggested that change would be easy ... and when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy."
And well, it should.
Though Obama's efforts to nationalize the nation's health care sector have been temporarily stalled, he has no intention of giving up, announcing that he is redoubling his efforts to expand central government controls over the private sector under cover of "economic crisis." As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Leading up to his SOTU, Obama endeavored to portray himself as a fiscal conservative: "We can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, that's what we've seen time and time again, Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation."
This is subterfuge.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a constitutional conservative: "We will lead in the observance of ... the rule of law. ... Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
This is deception.
Obama endeavors to portray himself as a resolute commander in chief. Regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom he decreed, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." On Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, he declared, "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." On the treatment of captive terrorists, he says, "I will restore America's moral standing." On the Long War with Jihadistan, Obama claims, "The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."
This is farce.
Obama is a dangerous neophyte in matters of national security, and he shows no signs of improving.
If Republicans really want to defeat Obama's Leftist agenda, they need to adopt the tried and true conservative message founded on Essential Liberty. Only then can they truly take control of the debate.
And while Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's response to Obama's SOTU address was encouraging, the current crop of Republican leaders continues to play by Democrat rules, attempting to sell a dangerous and debilitating elixir: "We don't offend the Constitution as bad as they do."
Bottom line: Republicans must refocus on First Principles and govern accordingly.
Republicans can best distinguish themselves from Democrats by, first and foremost, honoring their sacred oath to "support and defend" our Constitution.
To that end, Obama declared, "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it."
True, but on the other hand, if you are not going to abide by the law, you should be impeached.
P.S. If you are going to seat two police officers next to your wife in the gallery, the two who brought down the Ft. Hood jihadi terrorist, you might at least acknowledge them.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama Lied About Lobbyists. Surprise, Surprise
Obama Lied About Lobbyists.
By Erick Erickson
Barack Obama said, "To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
"That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it isn’t just Lynn:
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
By Erick Erickson
Barack Obama said, "To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
"That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it isn’t just Lynn:
* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Stop Illegal Immigration
OPERATION WETBACK
By Jon Christian Ryter
Three times in the history of the United States US Presidents took what would today be considered a politically unpopular position by rounding up and deporting illegal aliens to create jobs for US Citizens. The first attempt occurred shortly after the banker-induced Stock Market Crash of 1929 when President Herbert Hoover ordered the round-up and deportation of illegals by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. The program, dubbed "Operation Wetback," was carried out without any protests from US government-funded Hispanic advocacy groups—since there were none. The Clintonesque-liberal media political correctness dictionary was still 63 years in the future and the communist-left FDR (America's white Barack Obama) federal bureaucracy was still some 4-years in the making.
The Hoover roundup sent over one million Mexican illegal aliens packing—freeing up jobs for out-of-work US citizens. In addition, some 47 thousand Mexican nationals who were in the country legally, with visas, also opted to leave due to rising animosity by out-of-work Americans for any foreigner in the United States with a job. Operation Wetback was launched in the Southwest: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. But deportees also came from Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. Since Mexican illegals tried hard to remain under the radar screen, few of them traveled far beyond the border States, thus we can assume that most of the deportees from the States north of the Mason-Dixon line were legal residents. During the Hoover years, immigration to the United States was virtually stopped.
The Hoover deportations caused an outcry from the Mexican government demanding to know what gave Hoover the right to deny Mexican citizens the right to jobs in the United States under what was called the "Good Neighbor Policy." At the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman was faced with the same problem that plagued Hoover in 1931—no jobs for US citizens. Under Roosevelt's Public Law 78 agri-giants, who needed dirt cheap labor were allowed to import labor from Mexico even though 25% of the American labor force was out of work—and in the dust bowl farm states, unemployment stood at over 70%. Under Public Law 78, when work contracts were fulfilled, the employer was responsible, under law, to transport the migrant worker back to Mexico. As thousands of migrant workers simply vanished into the human landscape, taking what few jobs were available from American workers, Truman's solution was to issue a terse public statement admonishing Congress, and telling the American people that Congress assured him they would fix the problem. (Yeah, we can see how well the buck stopped at his desk.)
During the prosperity of the war years (1943-54), illegal alien immigration increased by 6,000%, triggering Operation Wetback II and III. In 1954, the INS estimated that illegals—not legal migrant workers—were crossing the US border at the rate of one million per year and that they were penetrating much deeper into the nation that in preceding decades because the INS concentrated their efforts only in the border States. The INS, on orders from the White House, went through the motions of rounding up both illegal aliens and migrant workers who overstayed their visas. Truman deported about 30 thousand Mexicans during his seven years in office.
Truman's blamed his poor record on guarding the border on Public Law 78, enacted by FDR's 73rd Congress and S.984, which was enacted by the 82nd Congress (that expanded the use of migratory workers from Mexico) and made it more difficult to expel illegals under Woodrow Wilson's "Good Neighbor Policy" with Mexico.
Truman became one of the three "deportion presidents" not for deporting Mexicans under Operation Wetback II, but under Presidential Proclamation 2655, an edict requiring the deportation of potentially dangerous WWII detainees from the Axis nations. Deported were several thousand men, women and children of German and Italian ancestry who spend most of World War II in internment camps. It appears that only about 900 Pervian Japanese farmers, held by the US government in that country, were deported to Japan at the end of war.
Eisenhower was stuck with cleaning up the mess created by the open door polices 73rd and 82nd Congresses. As Eisenhower took office, illegal immigrants were now crossing at the rate of about 3 million per year. When Eisenhower assumed the Oval Office, illegal alien migration was one of his top priorities. He attributed the lax attitude of Congress about illegal immigration with a relaxation of Congressional ethical standards. A Truman-initiated study on Mexican migratory labor in 1950 found that cotton growers in Texas paid migrant workers about half what a US citizen was paid to chop cotton. As Eisenhower met with current and retired border patrol agents he learned that the big ranchers and farmers who relied on the cheap migrant labor had friends "in high places" in government. Agents were subtlety warned not to arrest the workers employed by what turned out to be powerful campaign donors. When that didn't work, they were very bluntly told to back off, or they were simply transferred where they would become someone else's problem. The two most influential Senators who blocked the efforts of the INS to do their job were then Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson [D-TX] and Sen. Pat McCarran [D-NV].
Eisenhower hired Gen. Joseph May Swing to head the INS and with units of the US National Guard, began what history now views as a quasi-military operation to find and seize illegal immigrants As hard as Johnson tried to get rid of Swing, Eisenhower protected his man in Immigration. On July 15, 1953, the first day of Operation Wetback III, Swing's men arrested 4,800 illegals. After the first day, the INS averaged the seizure of 1,100 illegals per day. The INS devoted 700 men to the project, hoping to scare enough more illegals to flee back across the border. The INS claims that under Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, they deported 1,300,000 illegals. The open-border social progressives insist that all three phases of Operation Wetback were dismal flops, and that only a few thousand people—all of whom, they claim, were legal residents—were deported.
It was Truman who pushed the Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952 through Congress in the closing days of his administration. Under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) any US citizen that knowingly assists an illegal alien, provides them with employment, food, water or shelter has committed a felony. City, county or State officials that declare their jurisdictions to be "Open Cities, Counties or States are subject to arrest; as are law enforcement agencies who chose not to enforce this law. Police officers who ignore officials who violate Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) are committing a Section 274 federal felony. Furthermore, according to Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952, if you live in a city, county or State that refuses to enforce the law for whatever reason, the officials making those rules are financially liable for any crime committed within their jurisdiction by an illegal alien.
We now have approximately 25 million illegal aliens in the United States (even though the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that number at around 7.3 million). It's time to demand, under threat of impeachment, that Barack Hussein Obama launch Operation Wetback IV, and complete the job started by Hoover and Eisenhower.
Although they think they are, the President of the United States (legitimate or illegitimate), and the members of Congress are not above the law of the land. If Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and any other member of Congress refuses to enforce Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii), they need to be impeached for committing a federal felony, tried and removed from office, and then placed on trial in a US federal court (not of their choosing), and sentenced to federal prison for harboring illegals.
Furthermore, the United States needs to seize all of the assets of those individuals so that the people of the United States who have been robbed, raped or otherwise injured by an illegal alien can be made financially whole from their asset pool.
© 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
By Jon Christian Ryter
Three times in the history of the United States US Presidents took what would today be considered a politically unpopular position by rounding up and deporting illegal aliens to create jobs for US Citizens. The first attempt occurred shortly after the banker-induced Stock Market Crash of 1929 when President Herbert Hoover ordered the round-up and deportation of illegals by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. The program, dubbed "Operation Wetback," was carried out without any protests from US government-funded Hispanic advocacy groups—since there were none. The Clintonesque-liberal media political correctness dictionary was still 63 years in the future and the communist-left FDR (America's white Barack Obama) federal bureaucracy was still some 4-years in the making.
The Hoover roundup sent over one million Mexican illegal aliens packing—freeing up jobs for out-of-work US citizens. In addition, some 47 thousand Mexican nationals who were in the country legally, with visas, also opted to leave due to rising animosity by out-of-work Americans for any foreigner in the United States with a job. Operation Wetback was launched in the Southwest: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. But deportees also came from Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, and New York. Since Mexican illegals tried hard to remain under the radar screen, few of them traveled far beyond the border States, thus we can assume that most of the deportees from the States north of the Mason-Dixon line were legal residents. During the Hoover years, immigration to the United States was virtually stopped.
The Hoover deportations caused an outcry from the Mexican government demanding to know what gave Hoover the right to deny Mexican citizens the right to jobs in the United States under what was called the "Good Neighbor Policy." At the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman was faced with the same problem that plagued Hoover in 1931—no jobs for US citizens. Under Roosevelt's Public Law 78 agri-giants, who needed dirt cheap labor were allowed to import labor from Mexico even though 25% of the American labor force was out of work—and in the dust bowl farm states, unemployment stood at over 70%. Under Public Law 78, when work contracts were fulfilled, the employer was responsible, under law, to transport the migrant worker back to Mexico. As thousands of migrant workers simply vanished into the human landscape, taking what few jobs were available from American workers, Truman's solution was to issue a terse public statement admonishing Congress, and telling the American people that Congress assured him they would fix the problem. (Yeah, we can see how well the buck stopped at his desk.)
During the prosperity of the war years (1943-54), illegal alien immigration increased by 6,000%, triggering Operation Wetback II and III. In 1954, the INS estimated that illegals—not legal migrant workers—were crossing the US border at the rate of one million per year and that they were penetrating much deeper into the nation that in preceding decades because the INS concentrated their efforts only in the border States. The INS, on orders from the White House, went through the motions of rounding up both illegal aliens and migrant workers who overstayed their visas. Truman deported about 30 thousand Mexicans during his seven years in office.
Truman's blamed his poor record on guarding the border on Public Law 78, enacted by FDR's 73rd Congress and S.984, which was enacted by the 82nd Congress (that expanded the use of migratory workers from Mexico) and made it more difficult to expel illegals under Woodrow Wilson's "Good Neighbor Policy" with Mexico.
Truman became one of the three "deportion presidents" not for deporting Mexicans under Operation Wetback II, but under Presidential Proclamation 2655, an edict requiring the deportation of potentially dangerous WWII detainees from the Axis nations. Deported were several thousand men, women and children of German and Italian ancestry who spend most of World War II in internment camps. It appears that only about 900 Pervian Japanese farmers, held by the US government in that country, were deported to Japan at the end of war.
Eisenhower was stuck with cleaning up the mess created by the open door polices 73rd and 82nd Congresses. As Eisenhower took office, illegal immigrants were now crossing at the rate of about 3 million per year. When Eisenhower assumed the Oval Office, illegal alien migration was one of his top priorities. He attributed the lax attitude of Congress about illegal immigration with a relaxation of Congressional ethical standards. A Truman-initiated study on Mexican migratory labor in 1950 found that cotton growers in Texas paid migrant workers about half what a US citizen was paid to chop cotton. As Eisenhower met with current and retired border patrol agents he learned that the big ranchers and farmers who relied on the cheap migrant labor had friends "in high places" in government. Agents were subtlety warned not to arrest the workers employed by what turned out to be powerful campaign donors. When that didn't work, they were very bluntly told to back off, or they were simply transferred where they would become someone else's problem. The two most influential Senators who blocked the efforts of the INS to do their job were then Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson [D-TX] and Sen. Pat McCarran [D-NV].
Eisenhower hired Gen. Joseph May Swing to head the INS and with units of the US National Guard, began what history now views as a quasi-military operation to find and seize illegal immigrants As hard as Johnson tried to get rid of Swing, Eisenhower protected his man in Immigration. On July 15, 1953, the first day of Operation Wetback III, Swing's men arrested 4,800 illegals. After the first day, the INS averaged the seizure of 1,100 illegals per day. The INS devoted 700 men to the project, hoping to scare enough more illegals to flee back across the border. The INS claims that under Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, they deported 1,300,000 illegals. The open-border social progressives insist that all three phases of Operation Wetback were dismal flops, and that only a few thousand people—all of whom, they claim, were legal residents—were deported.
It was Truman who pushed the Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952 through Congress in the closing days of his administration. Under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) any US citizen that knowingly assists an illegal alien, provides them with employment, food, water or shelter has committed a felony. City, county or State officials that declare their jurisdictions to be "Open Cities, Counties or States are subject to arrest; as are law enforcement agencies who chose not to enforce this law. Police officers who ignore officials who violate Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) are committing a Section 274 federal felony. Furthermore, according to Federal Immigration and National Act of 1952, if you live in a city, county or State that refuses to enforce the law for whatever reason, the officials making those rules are financially liable for any crime committed within their jurisdiction by an illegal alien.
We now have approximately 25 million illegal aliens in the United States (even though the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that number at around 7.3 million). It's time to demand, under threat of impeachment, that Barack Hussein Obama launch Operation Wetback IV, and complete the job started by Hoover and Eisenhower.
Although they think they are, the President of the United States (legitimate or illegitimate), and the members of Congress are not above the law of the land. If Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and any other member of Congress refuses to enforce Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii), they need to be impeached for committing a federal felony, tried and removed from office, and then placed on trial in a US federal court (not of their choosing), and sentenced to federal prison for harboring illegals.
Furthermore, the United States needs to seize all of the assets of those individuals so that the people of the United States who have been robbed, raped or otherwise injured by an illegal alien can be made financially whole from their asset pool.
© 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Fundamentally Changing the United States
PRESIDENT OBAMA ESTABLISHES "COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS"
By Chuck Baldwin
The White House Office of the Press Secretary released a report on the White House web site titled "President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors." According to the press release, "The President today [January 11, 2009] signed an Executive Order establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
According to the report, the Council will be composed of "ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms . . . Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole."
The press release also states that "Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council."
As with most Presidential Directives or Executive Orders that have the potential to swallow our liberties and expand federal--or even international--police powers, the mainstream media conveniently fails to inform the American people as to what is happening. Such is the case with Obama's EO establishing a Council of Governors (COG). Therefore, it is left to independent writers to issue the alert. Thank God for the Internet!
As with any expansion of the federal government, this new Council of Governors needs to be monitored very carefully by freedom lovers. One blog rightly noted that the COG "clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed."
Another blogger wisely stated, "As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD [Department of Defense], spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that . . .) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of 'emergencies,' terrorist attacks, or natural disasters."
Actually, this EO is simply the latest in a series of events going back to the Bush and Clinton years, in which the federal government has taken steps to lay the foundation for extensive military police action within the United States.
Back in 2008, retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.
"It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a 'Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,' or a 'continental approach' to Canada-US defense and security.
"The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com that the agreement--defined as a Civil Assistance Plan--was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorists attacks.
"'This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,' warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau."
Of course, the groundwork for this US-Canadian agreement occurred in 2002 when President G.W. Bush created USNORTHCOM. For the first time in US history, an entire Army division has been tasked with "homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities." (Source: USNORTHCOM official web site) Plus, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and was signed into law in January 2008 by then-President Bush, required the implementation of the COG.
Then, in June of 2009, USNORTHCOM sent a legislative proposal to Congress requesting "amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense's powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies . . . 'thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.'"
Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive penned, "The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."
Concerning this, David Mundy at the Texas National Press commented, "If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states' militia . . . in handling domestic issues.
"More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon's request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans."
The report notes that in September of 2009, USNORTHCOM released its 32-page initial framework for the "Tri Command," referring to NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Canada COM. It is noted that while NORTHCOM AND Canada COM are national organizations, NORAD is set up as a binational force.
It is largely understood, therefore, that the Council of Governors has been established for the purpose of getting the governors' blessing on this newly accumulated power. In other words, the COG is Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton's effort to establish a liaison between the governors, DHS, DOD, and the National Guard.
Of course, as the report suggests, what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.
Anyone who is not concerned about the ever-increasing encroachment of federal power upon the states and citizenry at large is either not paying attention, or is already a slave at heart. Instead of worrying about whether a gubernatorial or State legislative candidate is a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, we need to be focusing on whether or not our State governors and legislators have the historical and constitutional acumen and resolve to resist the current dismantling of State sovereignty and personal liberty being orchestrated by this federal leviathan that is known as Washington, D.C.
We can survive hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, looters and thugs, blackouts, and even Muslim terrorists. What we cannot survive--at least not without great cost and effort--is tyranny at the hands of our own government. In this regard, our greatest threat is not foreign terrorists or natural disasters; our greatest threat is Washington, D.C.
So, while DC has an eye on this new Council of Governors, you'd better keep an eye on your governor as well; and keep the other eye on what's left of your liberties, because if those federal foxes come in the middle of the night and run off with them, it will be your governor that opened the door.
By Chuck Baldwin
The White House Office of the Press Secretary released a report on the White House web site titled "President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors." According to the press release, "The President today [January 11, 2009] signed an Executive Order establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
According to the report, the Council will be composed of "ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms . . . Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole."
The press release also states that "Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council."
As with most Presidential Directives or Executive Orders that have the potential to swallow our liberties and expand federal--or even international--police powers, the mainstream media conveniently fails to inform the American people as to what is happening. Such is the case with Obama's EO establishing a Council of Governors (COG). Therefore, it is left to independent writers to issue the alert. Thank God for the Internet!
As with any expansion of the federal government, this new Council of Governors needs to be monitored very carefully by freedom lovers. One blog rightly noted that the COG "clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed."
Another blogger wisely stated, "As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD [Department of Defense], spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that . . .) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of 'emergencies,' terrorist attacks, or natural disasters."
Actually, this EO is simply the latest in a series of events going back to the Bush and Clinton years, in which the federal government has taken steps to lay the foundation for extensive military police action within the United States.
Back in 2008, retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.
"It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a 'Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,' or a 'continental approach' to Canada-US defense and security.
"The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com that the agreement--defined as a Civil Assistance Plan--was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorists attacks.
"'This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,' warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau."
Of course, the groundwork for this US-Canadian agreement occurred in 2002 when President G.W. Bush created USNORTHCOM. For the first time in US history, an entire Army division has been tasked with "homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities." (Source: USNORTHCOM official web site) Plus, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and was signed into law in January 2008 by then-President Bush, required the implementation of the COG.
Then, in June of 2009, USNORTHCOM sent a legislative proposal to Congress requesting "amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense's powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies . . . 'thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.'"
Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive penned, "The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."
Concerning this, David Mundy at the Texas National Press commented, "If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states' militia . . . in handling domestic issues.
"More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon's request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans."
The report notes that in September of 2009, USNORTHCOM released its 32-page initial framework for the "Tri Command," referring to NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Canada COM. It is noted that while NORTHCOM AND Canada COM are national organizations, NORAD is set up as a binational force.
It is largely understood, therefore, that the Council of Governors has been established for the purpose of getting the governors' blessing on this newly accumulated power. In other words, the COG is Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton's effort to establish a liaison between the governors, DHS, DOD, and the National Guard.
Of course, as the report suggests, what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.
Anyone who is not concerned about the ever-increasing encroachment of federal power upon the states and citizenry at large is either not paying attention, or is already a slave at heart. Instead of worrying about whether a gubernatorial or State legislative candidate is a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, we need to be focusing on whether or not our State governors and legislators have the historical and constitutional acumen and resolve to resist the current dismantling of State sovereignty and personal liberty being orchestrated by this federal leviathan that is known as Washington, D.C.
We can survive hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, looters and thugs, blackouts, and even Muslim terrorists. What we cannot survive--at least not without great cost and effort--is tyranny at the hands of our own government. In this regard, our greatest threat is not foreign terrorists or natural disasters; our greatest threat is Washington, D.C.
So, while DC has an eye on this new Council of Governors, you'd better keep an eye on your governor as well; and keep the other eye on what's left of your liberties, because if those federal foxes come in the middle of the night and run off with them, it will be your governor that opened the door.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
UN Health Plan Worse Than Obama's
U.N.'s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity
By George Russell
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.
Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.
The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.
The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.
WHO's so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.
These would also add billions in additional funds to international health care for the future — as much as $7.4 billion yearly from rich countries, and as much as $12.1 billion from low- and middle-income nations.
But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:
—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, "which might net about $5 billion per annum";
—a "digital tax or 'hit' tax." The report says the levy "could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users";
—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified "major withdrawals." The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.
The panel concludes that "taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions," even as the report urges WHO's executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism" for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.
The WHO scheme to transfer impressive amounts of money, technology, patents and manufacturing ability to the developing world in a global battle to conquer disease looks similar in many respects to the calls for huge transfers of wealth and technology that were at the heart of the just-failed U.N.-sponsored conference on lowering greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen.
Indeed, the volume of revenues that the experts foresee from their global indirect tax — if it should ever be approved by enough national governments — might well come close to the $30 billion annual wealth transfer that rich nations approved at Copenhagen to hand over to poor countries until 2012.
But a global health tax would go one big step further. And, as the experts point out, one trail-blazing version of their global consumer tax for medical research already exists: a germinating program known as UNITAID, which aims to battle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
UNITAID, which began in 2006 and is also hosted by WHO, is financed in part by a "solidarity contribution" levy of anywhere from $1.20 to $58 on airline tickets among a group of nations led by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain. According to the WHO experts report, it has raised around $1 billion since its inception, with 13 countries having already passed the airline tax legislation and "several" others in the process of doing so.
The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.
UNITAID's board chairman, Philippe Douste-Blazy , a former French Cabinet Minister and currently special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on "innovative financing for development," is also a member of the WHO expert working group.
The global financial mechanism that the experts have been exploring is the keystone to WHO's entire program for the transformation of the world's health industry, which was endorsed as a "global strategy and plan of action" by the health organization's World Assembly in May 2008.
The plan includes more than 100 specific actions across the areas of research and development, technology transfer and intellectual property rights, among others, according to an update that will also be presented to the executive board next week.
New regional and national networks for medical innovation and development are being planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa — where, for example, there will be "African-led product research and development innovation," including delivery of drugs based on traditional medicines.
Another major effort is the transfer of technology to poorer countries to produce vaccines. One example: H1N1 flu vaccine, which is being manufactured in China, India and Thailand under licensing arrangements created under WHO auspices.
After WHO issued repeated warnings of a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic over the past two years, countries such as Britain and France ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, only to decide that they were unnecessary, leading to mass cancellations of orders. WHO is reviewing how it handled the crisis.
According to the WHO update, the U.N. organization is already promoting transfers of new medical products for vaccines against rabies, even though that disease is now something of a rarity in the West.
A significant aim of the WHO effort is expanding production and distribution of remedies for what it calls "neglected diseases," mainly meaning those that are more common in poor, underdeveloped countries than in richer ones. These include a variety of parasitic ailments, including trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.
Behind all of the effort is the "persistent and growing concern," as the expert's paper puts it, that "the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor," which the paper calls "one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity."
As with "climate change" at Copenhagen, the WHO's experts see that health inequity as a malady that innovative and permanent forms of global taxation are just the right thing to help cure.
By George Russell
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.
Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.
The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.
The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.
WHO's so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.
These would also add billions in additional funds to international health care for the future — as much as $7.4 billion yearly from rich countries, and as much as $12.1 billion from low- and middle-income nations.
But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:
—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, "which might net about $5 billion per annum";
—a "digital tax or 'hit' tax." The report says the levy "could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users";
—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified "major withdrawals." The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.
The panel concludes that "taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions," even as the report urges WHO's executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism" for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.
The WHO scheme to transfer impressive amounts of money, technology, patents and manufacturing ability to the developing world in a global battle to conquer disease looks similar in many respects to the calls for huge transfers of wealth and technology that were at the heart of the just-failed U.N.-sponsored conference on lowering greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen.
Indeed, the volume of revenues that the experts foresee from their global indirect tax — if it should ever be approved by enough national governments — might well come close to the $30 billion annual wealth transfer that rich nations approved at Copenhagen to hand over to poor countries until 2012.
But a global health tax would go one big step further. And, as the experts point out, one trail-blazing version of their global consumer tax for medical research already exists: a germinating program known as UNITAID, which aims to battle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
UNITAID, which began in 2006 and is also hosted by WHO, is financed in part by a "solidarity contribution" levy of anywhere from $1.20 to $58 on airline tickets among a group of nations led by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain. According to the WHO experts report, it has raised around $1 billion since its inception, with 13 countries having already passed the airline tax legislation and "several" others in the process of doing so.
The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.
UNITAID's board chairman, Philippe Douste-Blazy , a former French Cabinet Minister and currently special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on "innovative financing for development," is also a member of the WHO expert working group.
The global financial mechanism that the experts have been exploring is the keystone to WHO's entire program for the transformation of the world's health industry, which was endorsed as a "global strategy and plan of action" by the health organization's World Assembly in May 2008.
The plan includes more than 100 specific actions across the areas of research and development, technology transfer and intellectual property rights, among others, according to an update that will also be presented to the executive board next week.
New regional and national networks for medical innovation and development are being planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa — where, for example, there will be "African-led product research and development innovation," including delivery of drugs based on traditional medicines.
Another major effort is the transfer of technology to poorer countries to produce vaccines. One example: H1N1 flu vaccine, which is being manufactured in China, India and Thailand under licensing arrangements created under WHO auspices.
After WHO issued repeated warnings of a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic over the past two years, countries such as Britain and France ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, only to decide that they were unnecessary, leading to mass cancellations of orders. WHO is reviewing how it handled the crisis.
According to the WHO update, the U.N. organization is already promoting transfers of new medical products for vaccines against rabies, even though that disease is now something of a rarity in the West.
A significant aim of the WHO effort is expanding production and distribution of remedies for what it calls "neglected diseases," mainly meaning those that are more common in poor, underdeveloped countries than in richer ones. These include a variety of parasitic ailments, including trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.
Behind all of the effort is the "persistent and growing concern," as the expert's paper puts it, that "the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor," which the paper calls "one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity."
As with "climate change" at Copenhagen, the WHO's experts see that health inequity as a malady that innovative and permanent forms of global taxation are just the right thing to help cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)