Posted by: knuckledragginsam | October 3, 2014

Obama’s Insults to the Military!


Obama’s top 30 most disrespectful insults to the military

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-top-30-most-disrespectful-insults-to-the-military

Liberals are responding to public irritation over Obama’s “latte salute” by circulating various awkward images of President Bush struggling to salute with the Bush family dog, “Barney,” in his other hand. This oblivious apples-and-oranges comparison ignores the fact that there is nothing even remotely controversial in the military about saluting with something in your other hand.


Photo by Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

They add that there is no law requiring the president to salute, and that many presidents never saluted…as if Obama halfway adhering to military customs and courtesies weren’t still an insulting display of indifference. But all of this misses the point. It matters more coming from Obama because he openly despises the Armed Forces, as his endless betrayals of them make unmistakably clear.

Here are Obama’s top 30 most disrespectful insults to the military:

30) Looking past all his civilian aides to order a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head like a butler for an entire speech at the Rose Garden, in violation of military regulations.
29) Forcing race-baiting class warfare propaganda, extreme PC “sensitivity” measures, andGay Pride Month on soldiers.
28) Taking credit for the success of the surge he opposed in Iraq.
27) Taking credit for the success of the interrogation policies he opposed that located Osama bin Laden.
26) Skipping the funeral of the highest-ranking officer to be killed on foreign soil in over 40 years (Major-General Harold J. Greene), to play golf.
25) Smearing veterans as potential domestic terrorists.
24) Trying to make wounded veterans cover their own medical treatment through private health insurance plans, which would inevitably end up increasing their out-of-pocket costs.
23) Blaming our troops for the Taliban attacking them…for everything from objecting to pedophilia and advocating women’s rights, to not wearing latex gloves while handling Korans and walking in front of Muslims while they are praying.
22) Rushing in to misrepresent the Ft. Hood massacre that killed 13 soldiers (one whom was pregnant) as mere “workplace violence.”
21) Giving captured terrorists at Gitmo (who are drenched in soldiers’ blood) a $750,000 soccer field, cable TV, entertainment, classes in painting, etc., while stripping away benefits for soldiers at every turn.
20) Ordering federal agencies to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible for the American people, which ended up cutting tuition assistance for soldiers and increasing other college costs for the Armed Forces across the board.
19) Denying veterans from all over the country access to the WWII Memorial in Washington over a staged government shutdown while allowing illegal immigrants to hold a political rally on closed federal grounds.
18) Cutting military health care benefits and pensions while increasing spending on unionized federal bureaucrats (Obama voters).
17) Ignoring a former Marine frivolously imprisoned in Mexico on trumped up weapons charges.
16) Using soldiers to help a terror-sponsoring dictator fight off outraged civilian protesters.
15) Purging the military of oath-keeping constitutionalists.
14) Imposing draconian cuts to the things we are actually supposed to be spending tax dollars on under the Constitution (like the military), while exploding spending on things the Federal Government has no authority to even be involved in, like Obama’s trillion-dollar health care takeover.
13) Silencing and criminalizing Christianity in the military.
12) Banning time-proven interrogation techniques and insisting on treating foreign terrorists as mere common criminals to be tried in American courts, as civilians.
11) Suppressing military votes.
10) Imposing ludicrous rules of engagement on our troops that have needlessly gotten many soldiers killed.
9) Appeasing our enemies, backing down after drawing “red lines” in the sand, betrayingour allies, and dismantling our missile defenses…all of which needlessly endangers our troops.
8) Cutting troops down to pre-WWII levels, and then allowing illegal immigrants into the military.
7) Allowing veterans to die on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals all over the country, after being warned about the manipulated numbers and obscene delays in care (welcome to ‘universal health care’) back in 2008.
6) Abandoning three decorated veterans and a U.S. ambassador to be dragged through the streets and tortured to death by bloodthirsty Islamic savages in Benghazi, and then falsely blaming it on Americans having the right to disagree with Islam in public.
5) Releasing numerous terrorists back onto the streets so they could return and attack our soldiers, including one who ended up becoming the leader of ISIS.
4) Releasing five major terrorist leaders to appease the Taliban into releasing one America-hating deserter.
3) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq while handing Afghanistan back to the Islamic fundamentalists who facilitated 9/11 (the Taliban).
2) Openly funding and arming Islamic terrorists.
1) Endlessly trampling the Constitution that soldiers are sworn to defend and attacking the rights they fight, bleed, and die to protect.

Oct 1, 2014

Posted by: knuckledragginsam | September 24, 2014

Muslims Living in America Are 90% Sunni


Excellent article explaining Islam

ALEXANDER’S COLUMN

Islamic Jihad — Target America

Should You Be Concerned?

By Mark Alexander · September 24, 2014   

“The establishment of civil and religious liberty was the Motive which induced me to the Field.” —George Washington (1783)

Despite assurances to the contrary from our nation’s commander in chief, it turns out that global Jihad is thriving. And it constitutes a greater threat to our nation’s security today than at any time in history.

Should you be concerned?

Of course, the answer is “yes,” but with qualification.

The most imminent domestic threat to your life and property, statistically, emanates from the sociopathic drug/gang culture, which continues to metastasize on urban poverty plantations and is now spilling into suburban and rural communities. That threat has been cultivated for the last five decades by ruinous political and social policies that were, ostensibly, enacted to eradicate the poverty those policies institutionalized.

That notwithstanding, the elevated threat to your life from Islamic extremists should be a concern — not because the probability of being an individual victim of an Islamist assault will soon be higher than the drug/gang culture threat, but because the probability of being among the cumulative victims of a catastrophic attack on our homeland — be it conventional, nuclear or biological — is escalating largely unabated.

The 9/11 attack on our country was perpetrated by 19 al-Qa’ida operatives. Its immediate effects — the loss of lives and the longer-term economic impact — were devastating. It would only take five to 10 al-Qa’ida operatives to create destruction on a 100-fold scale, with a little help from Iran or other terror-sponsoring states.

How real is that threat?

Islamic terrorist groups are surging worldwide, including Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Khorasan Group and now, front and center, ISIL, a.k.a. the Islamic State — all of which together constitute Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists aligned under the Qur’anic umbrella.

Currently there are many American Islamists actively fighting among the ranks of ISIL in the Middle East — and they have significant networks of support in the United States. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper concludes that the direct links between ISIL and those domestic networks has created “the most diverse array of threats and challenges as I’ve seen in my 50-plus years in the [intelligence] business.”

How did this surge get underway?

In 2012, amid the cascading failure of his domestic economic and social policies, Barack Obama centered his re-election campaign on his faux foreign policy successes, which were built upon the following two boasts: “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. I did.” And “al-Qa’ida is on the run.”

The reality, however, is that Obama’s “hope and change” retreat from Iraq left a vacuum for the resurgence of a far more dangerous incarnation of Muslim terrorism under the ISIL label, which has displaced al-Qa’ida as the dominant asymmetric Islamic terrorist threat to the West.

Clearly, it is Obama’s foreign policy malfeasance that poses the greatest threat to U.S. national and homeland security.

So, is the Islamic State actually, well, Islamic?

Not according to Obama. While he subscribes to the hate-driven rhetoric ofAfro-centric theology, six formative years of his early life were spent attending Islamic schools in Indonesia.

In his address to the nation last week, he claimed, “Let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. … And ISIL is certainly not a state.”

Reasonable people may disagree on whether the Islamic State now occupying much of Syria and Iraq is, at least by the Western definition, a state, but it certainly is a state in the Jihadistan context given the Islamic World of the Qur’an recognizes no political borders.

But for Obama to suggest “ISIL is not Islamic” is flatly absurd. Why else are American taxpayers providing Islamist prisoners at Gitmo copies of the Qur’an and payer rugs?

It is equally asinine, of course, for Secretary of State John Kerry to perpetuate the lie that “Islam is the Religion of Peace™” by claiming, “We must continue to repudiate the gross distortion of Islam that ISIL is spreading.”

Their errant assertions prompted this rebuke from Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani: “[Obama and Kerry] turned into Islamic jurists, muftis, sheikhs and preachers, standing up for Islam and the Muslims, so it appears that they no longer have confidence in the ability or sincerity of their sorcerers…”

Share

So, is Islamic Jihad really “Islamic”?

There are many excellent resources forunderstanding Islamic extremism and the rise ofIslamic terrorism. But allow me to offer a brief overview of Islam and the schism that gave rise to global Islamic Jihad.

In 570 AD, Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad was born in Mecca (in modern-day Saudi Arabia). In the year 610, Muhammad went into the hills and claims to have received instruction from an angel to spend the next 22 years as the exclusive transcriber of Allah’s message, the Qur’an, which means “recitation.” Its 114 Surahs, or chapters, outline the religious, military, civil, social, commercial and legal systems of Islam. Most Muslims believe that Islam originated with the prophet Adam, and that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were Islamic prophets.

After Muhammad’s death in 632, Islam split into two factions, Sunni and Shi’ite — a split originating from a dispute about whether the religion should be led by strict adherence to the Qur’an, or led by Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad. The Sunnis (from “Ahl al-Sunna,” meaning “people of the tradition”) bonded through Muslim orthodoxy. The Shias (from “Shiat Ali,” meaning “party of Ali”) were a political alliance formed around Muhammad’s descendant.

Despite the split, Islam thrived, and by the 17th century, a vast Muslim empire was controlled by a powerful military and was the cultural cradle of mathematics, architecture, art, law and science. But the rise of Western military power would divide and conquer the Muslim empire by the end of the 18th century, followed by European occupations of much of that former empire over the next century.

By the end of World War I, Islam’s Ottoman Empire was lost. Many Muslims adapted to Western culture, while some held to old Islamic traditions. But the re-constitution of the State of Israel in 1948 seeded a resurgence of Islamic fervor, a fervor that would unleash itself 30 years later under the watch of Jimmy Carter’s administration.

In 1979, the powerful and strategic state of Iran fell to the Islamic Revolution, and Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to power. Student revolutionaries seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage, and that act galvanized both Shia and Sunni Islamist activists throughout the Middle East.

Today, Shia Muslims represent majorities only in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain.

But Islamic Jihad, including al-Qa’ida and subsequent terrorist groups, is rooted in Sunni orthodoxy. Sunnis represent about 85% of Muslims worldwide, including countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

So again, is Islamic Jihad “Islamic”? Indeed, it is.

The Suras of the Qur’an and the Hadith (Muhammad’s teachings) require jihad, or “holy war,” against all “the enemies of God.” For the record, orthodox Sunnis understand that these “infidels” include all Muslim or non-Muslim people who refute any teachings of Muhammad — which is why ISIL Sunnis are slaughtering Iraqi Shias.

Rebutting Obama’s assertion that Islamic Jihad is disconnected from Islam, Hoover Institution Fellow Dennis Prager writes: “Killing ‘unbelievers’ has been part of — of course not all of — Islam since its inception. Within 10 years of Muhammad’s death Muslims had conquered and violently converted whole peoples from Iran to Egypt and from Yemen to Syria. Muslims have offered conquered people death or conversion since that time. … More than 600 years after Muhammad, Ibn Khaldun, the greatest Muslim writer who ever lived, explained why Islam is the superior religion in the most highly regarded Muslim work ever written, ‘Muqaddimah,’ or ‘Introduction to History’: ‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.'”

Thus, if you’re among those who resist or refute Muhammad’s teachings, you’re a de facto enemy of Islam.

According to Muhammad in the Qur’anic verses, Allah commands, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Do you refute any teachings of Muhammad?

Based on the Sunni Islamist history of violence, it is clear that Islam is not “the Religion of Peace,” though there are obviously many Muslims worldwide and in the U.S. who do not subscribe to Islamist Jihad theology. But the number of Sunni Muslims who do support that totalitarian theology is staggering.

According to the Pew Research Center, there are 2.75 million Muslims in the U.S. today. Notably, about 90% of American Muslims are Sunni. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Nation of Islam have now established more than 2,200 mosques, some of which have become hotbeds of support for Sunni Islamist extremists. The ethnic group with the fastest growing conversion rate to Islam is Latino — 12 million of whom are now in the U.S. illegally, and who continue to pour across our southern border.

Do any of those grim statistics concern you?

At the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, George Washington wrote that our nation has its roots in “the establishment of civil and religious liberty.”

Islam, on the other hand, is founded on the abolition of civil and religious liberty — which is to say it is diametrically opposed to the notion that Liberty is “endowed by our Creator.”

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Posted by: knuckledragginsam | September 9, 2014

It Takes Courage to be a Great Leader, That’s Why There is So Few of Them


The following comment is in reference to; Opinion; Searching for a Strategy to Defeat ISIS

http://news.usni.org/2014/09/08/opinion-searching-strategy-defeat-isis?utm_source=USNI+News%3A+Members&utm_campaign=cc6187bb17-USNI_MEMBERS_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_212f579a99-cc6187bb17-229755905&ct=t(USNI_MEMBERS_NEWS_DAILY)&mc_cid=cc6187bb17&mc_eid=36bda53e6c

The only thing these terrorist respect is and overwhelming force that will crush them out wherever they raise their ugly heads! And, every western power in the world should act as one to make this happen, it should NOT only be the United States carrying water for the rest of the worlds as it has since 1945, why is it always our men and women bleeding for the world?

The Arabs are responsible for this they have been repeatedly supporting them in some form or fashion since the end of WWI when the British reneged on their deal to turn over the Ottoman Empire which incompasses Iraq, Syria, Iran etc. This is why Odumbo and 1960’s radical liberals repeatedly refers to ISIL as the Levant…

Following his African born British Subject fathers attitude, he too has a grudge against imperialism which is exactly what WWI was all about and he feels that America too even though it is a Republic we too are responsible for imperialism around the world and he would like to neuter American power just for that reason…

These atrocities have been going on since the beginning of Islam and it was no less during WWI with the Turks when they started losing they took it out on their own non muslim people it will go on long after we are gone. And, Odumbo and the Democrat Party will continue to try to “Fundamentally Change America” from within by demanding there is no terrorist threat or so called “War on Terror” (which is exactly what it is!).

It takes a GREAT LEADER to recognize the threat and then HAVE THE COURAGE to face it head on WITH THE WORLD BEHIND HIM and with the American People drug along kicking and screaming if necessary to carry out the mission to completion.

Harry Truman didn’t just walk away from Japan and Germany when they lost the war, we stayed and nurtured these countries into successful democracies mirrored in the image of our own. The only thing that has changed from then to now is the extreme liberal ideology that has permeated the press, our schools, and virtually every single branch of the federal government!

My God, we went toe to toe with the Soviet Union for what 45 years and kicked their butts the American People understood the threat then, someone tell me what’s so different now?

Posted by: knuckledragginsam | September 4, 2014

Obama & His Treasonous Friends


The President’s Treason Quotient

Dave Hodges September 2, 2014

The United States could be months away from a total subversion of all of its constitutional principles, its traditions, its wealth and ultimately the freedom and survival of millions of its citizens. This very real possibility is due to the fact that America could soon be engaged in a war of national survival. The fundamental question surrounding this article is whether, or not, the American people can trust the current President to do his best to defend the Constitution, our culture and even our very lives? Is Obama capable of setting aside his apparent differences with the mainstream of the American people to protect them in the very dark days that lie ahead? Or, is Obama is the right man, at the right time to engineer a total communist subversion of the United States at its most critical hour?

All In the Family

An analysis of Obama’s suitability to hold the highest office in the land begins with an analysis of Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis.  

We can easily find that Davis was a member of the Communist Party and a former Soviet Agent, who was under FBI investigation for a total of 19 years. In 1948, Davis moved from Chicago to Hawaii leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Senior White House advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Yes, the Jarrett’s are communists as well.  Both Jarrett and Davis wrote for a left-wing newspaper called the Chicago Defender in which they espoused a communist takeover of the United States Government. In 1971, Davis, according to Joel Gilbert‘s seminal work, reunited with his then nine-year-old son, Barack Obama, and schooled him in the ways of being a good communist for the next nine years.

Following the nine years of mentoring and parenting by Frank Davis, Obama made some very important communist connections which ultimately led to him obtaining an impressive college education financed by some very familiar communist activists, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You remember Bill and Bernardine, don’t you? FBI special informant, Larry Grathwohl, and Joel Gilbert credit the two with launching Obama’s political career from their Chicago living room. Just who are the two benefactors of President Obama’s political career?

The Prairie Fire book was co-authored by Dohrn and Ayers, and, quite unbelievably, it was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy’s assassin. Former FBI informant, While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Larry Grathwohl, revealed that he testified in a court of law that Ayers and Dohrn had direct involvement in a terrorist plot which killed San Francisco police sergeant, Brian V. McDonnell, by a bomb made and planted by these Weathermen Underground terrorists.

Grathwohl also revealed that he asked Ayers, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do Weathermen, most with advanced degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a communist takeover of the government. Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered.  Bill and Bernardine’s Weather Underground had the support of Cuba, East German intelligence and the North Vietnamese.

During the Vietnam War era, Ayers championed black civil rights and he and Dohrn further chastised white society for their treatment of blacks. Grathwohl also revealed that Ayers wanted to support the beginning of a race war by killing whites, by supposed black villains, and then blaming whites in order to begin a race war. How eerily similar does this sound to the Charles Manson Family and their Helter Skelter plans to execute that very objective, at the same time in history? While Grathwohl was infiltrating the Weathermen, Ayers ordered FBI infiltrator, Grathwohl, to blow up a Detroit police substation to which Grathwohl said that a nearby restaurant, where many blacks ate would suffer many casualties. Ayers replied that some have to die for a revolution to proceed.

Ayers and Dohrn raised a son, Chesa Boudin, who worked for the late Hugo Chavez, former communist dictator in charge of Venezuela. Chesa Boudin was the child of Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of a Weathermen Underground spin-off group who went to prison for an armored car robbery that resulted in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn, served seven months for her role in the robbery and this is the reason that she is ineligible to become bar certified as an attorney. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were the ones primarily responsible for educating Obama with the communist funds and then subsequently launched his political career from their living room in their Chicago home? Well, it is true, please read on.

Allen Hulton, a 39-year veteran of the postal service, provided a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, AZ. Sheriff investigators, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an effort toward determining whether or not former foreign college student, Barack Obama, is eligible to be placed on Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. After reviewing Hulton’s affidavit, it is apparent that Ayers and Dohrn were in fact the de facto adoptive parents to this foreign student destined to become the first illegitimate President of the United States. As a result, Obama was treated to the finest Ivy League education that communist backed money could buy as Hulton maintains that the Ayers told him that he was financing the education of a promising foreign student at Harvard. Hulton also testified that he met Obama while at the Ayer’s home and he asked Obama what he is going to do with all his education, to which Obama politely answered, “I am going to become the President”. Readers should take note that this is an affidavit, and as such, is formally considered to be evidence, not conjecture or hearsay. There can be no other conclusion that the communist terrorist, Bill Ayers, began grooming Obama to become America’s first communist President during Obama’s college years. Their relationship continues into the present time, as it is on record that Ayers visited the White House in August of 2009.

We also know that Obama’s communist affiliations continued well into his adulthood because of the good work of Joel Gilbert, who discovered that Obama was active with a Weathermen Underground support group known as The May 19th Communist Organization, in New York. Perhaps, this is why Ayers was visiting the White House.

Frand Chapman, was a communist activist and a member of the communist front group known as the World Peace Council. Chapman clearly used the term “mole” to describe Obama. He said Obama’s political climb and subsequent success in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was “a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” Chapman further stated that, “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through. The Communist Party USA backs Obama to the hilt.” It is clear that Obama is their man!

Obama’s Connections to the CIA

It is time to reveal the true nature of the Manchurian candidate who sits in the Oval office through a brief examination of his family members with CIA affiliations along with their exposure to the MKULTRA mind control experiments being conducted at the University of Hawaii.

With the stroke of his executive order pen, President Obama quickly moved to seal off his records from public view after his election. However, he was too late to hide his background completely as researchers, such as Wayne Madsen, who has found significant information to demonstrate that what Obama has omitted, is that his rare rise to power can only be explained by his family’s CIA roots.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the culmination of what the Soviet defectors have been warning America about for decades in that Obama’s ascendency to the Presidency was part of a documented long-term strategic plan to recruit selected candidates into intelligence, while guiding these individuals and their families into high-ranking intelligence community positions before executing the meteoric rise to power by one of their own. For example, George H. W. Bush was a former CIA director, and CIA member going back to the 1950′s and thanks to Wayne Madsen, we now know that Obama’s family was CIA as well.

The following paragraph represents quoted excerpts from Wayne Madsen’s exceptional investigation into the Obama family CIA background:

“President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960′s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno….   Soetoro worked for the elitist Ford Foundation, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bank Rakyat (the majority government-owned People’s Bank of Indonesia), and the CIA-linked USAID while she lived in Indonesia and later, Pakistan….. Barack Obama, on the other hand, cleverly masked his own CIA connections as well as those of his mother, father, step-father, and grandmother (there is very little known about Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham.”

Madsen painstakingly and conclusively demonstrated that virtually all of Obama’s relatives were CIA operatives. Madsen has found even more CIA connections to Obama’s first employer. Madsen further went on to describe how Obama’s family was clearly exposed and was intimately connected to MKULTRA’s PSYOPS program at the University of Hawaii. Info Wars also carried Madsen’s expose and it is available here.

It’s a Small World

President Obama’s family and former Ex-Goldman Sachs executive, Ex-Treasury Secretary and World Bank leader, Tim Geithner and his family  have been joined together at the hip for decades. Tim Geithner’s father worked for the CIA in the Rockefeller funded Ford Foundation in Asia. Geithner’s father was in charge of micro-finance for the Ford Foundation for all of Asia. From Wayne Madsen’s work, we know that President Obama’s mother was in charge of micro-finance in Indonesia. The Hollywood producers could not make this plot up. Geithner’s father was Obama’s mother’s boss. It is becoming difficult to not suspect that Geithner’s father did not tag Obama as a potential presidential CIA Ford Foundation, well-groomed Manchurian candidate.

Additional information comes from the discovery that the two universities that Obama attended, Harvard and Columbia, were prime CIA recruiting grounds. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations continued to fund Columbia’s Soviet studies programs through the early 1980s, where Obama was a student. And would anyone care to guess what Obama was studying?

Obama was enrolled in a Soviet studies program taught by Zbigniew Brzezinski. And to those who are new to NWO conspiracies, one might wonder who is Brzezinski?  Brzezinski was the former National Security Adviser under President Carter. But more importantly, he was also the co-founder of one of the most influential globalist organizations in all of history, the Trilateral Commission. If you know your New World Order history, you have chills going up and down your spine as you read these words. We should be mindful that Brzezinski, in his book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), that he laid out the NWO conspiracy to control all nation states and usher in a totalitarian world government. 

Historians now know that Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter’s handler and almost single-handedly wrecked Carter’s legacy. Brzezinski is also running Obama and is the President’s handler.  And what lessons did Brzezinski impart to young Barack? The two following quotes from Brzezinski makes it clear that he was preparing Obama to rule over a national police state surveillance grid in America.

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities”. 

Zbigniew BrzezinskiBetween Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

“In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

Zbigniew BrzezinskiBetween Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era

In the second quote, Brzezinski is clearly calling for the installation of CIA/MKULTRA mind control leaders. Today, Brzezinski would call his former understudy, Obama, a President with an undeniable “magnetic and attractive personality exploiting the latest communications techniques designed to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

Bred By Communists, Groomed By Communists to Engineer a Communist Takeover

Obama has been surrounded by nothing but communists for all of his life. From Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, to the husband and wife communist terrorist team of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weathermen Underground terrorist organization, Obama has known nothing but Marxist communist philosophy in his formative years. The late Senator, Joseph McCarthy, is rolling over in his grave due to the fact that a sitting President has such a retrograde pattern of communist associations and still managed to attain the presidency.

Former FBI Weatherman Task Force supervisor, Max Noel, noted that the FBI utilized a CARL test when it conducted background checks on various suspects. The acronym CARL stands for Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty is used to assess candidates’ fitness to hold the highest office in the country. On each of these four points of power, Obama fails and fails miserably. Like many FBI law enforcement agents and officials, Noel was alarmed by the fact that someone like Barack Obama could capture the presidency. For some unexplained reason, Obama was never vetted before he became a candidate for the presidency by the FBI. This is an unacceptable result of our national security system and is wholly suggestive of an internal plot to allow the installation of a blatantly communist advocate into the highest political position in America.

Today, many people have been in a position to now vet the President after Obama’s first six years in office and have observed his “fundamental transformation of America.”

Because of the psychological principal, cognitive dissonance, no amount of direct or circumstantial proof would convince some people that the highest political position in the country has been compromised by a communist plot spanning several decades. The term cognitive dissonance refers to a person who has received information so shocking, so upsetting, that they cannot adequately process that information and then instead denies the validity of the proof that anyone else can see. If you are one of the cognitive dissonance types, please allow me to ask you a few questions.

Who was Obama’s basketball coach in high school? The President has some degree of basketball skills as he defeated former NBA player and sports broadcaster, Clark Kellogg, in a game of pig (how appropriate) in front of a national TV audience. Who was Obama’s history teacher in high school? Why don’t we see interviews with his former professors, teachers, coaches, childhood friends and his first girlfriend? Who in the hell is he? There are no visible answers to these questions are there? But still the cognitive dissonance crowd still persists with their abject denials. To them, I say let’s judge a man by his actions, not his words. Have Obama’s actions served to help or hurt America? Do his Presidential actions match up with his communist background?

Conclusion

Obama was the right man, at the right time to engineer a total communist subversion of the United States are not merely the words of journalistic rhetoric designed to sensationalize the sentiment which has grown in opposition to the communist policies of an unpopular president. The allegations of Obama’s communists affiliations and political philosophy have concrete ties to reality and fact.

America sits poised on the edge of World War III. As was pointed out in the previous article in this series, a President may have to make a critical decision on the real possibility of launching a first-strike nuclear attack if war is inevitable because America cannot win a conventional against Russia, China and the rest of the BRICS.

Can America trust this man to make the best choices in the best interests of the country? Or, has this modern-day Benedict Arnold preparing to carry out the mandates of prior training?

With war looming, it is time that the nation seriously evaluate Obama’s Treason Quotient.

Source

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/presidents-treason-quotient/#7Wl4uECgHQTJjW5v.99

Posted by: knuckledragginsam | September 4, 2014

1960’s Radical Eric Holders Takeover of America


As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office

– The Daily Caller – http://dailycaller.com –

Posted By Charles C. Johnson and Ryan Girdusky On 11:56 PM 09/30/2012 In | No Comments

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed — and if so, with what sort of weapon.

Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”

Black radicals from the same group also occupied the office of Dean of Freshman Henry Coleman until their demands were met. Holder has publicly acknowledged being a part of that action.

The details of the student-led occupation, including the claim that the raiders were “armed,” come from a deleted Web page of the Black Students’ Organization (BSO) at Columbia, a successor group to the SAAS. Contemporary newspaper accounts in The Columbia Daily Spectator, a student newspaper, did not mention weapons.

Holder, now the United States’ highest-ranking law enforcement official, has given conflicting accounts of this episode during college commencement addresses at Columbia, but both the BSO’s website and the Daily Spectator have published facts that conflict with his version of events.

Holder has bragged about his involvement in the “rise of black consciousness” protests at Columbia.

“I was among a large group of students who felt strongly about the way we thought the world should be, and we weren’t afraid to make our opinions heard,” he said during Columbia’s 2009 commencement exercises. “I did not take a final exam until my junior year at Columbia — we were on strike every time finals seemed to roll around — but we ran out of issues by that third year.”

Though then-Dean Carl Hovde declared the occupation of the Naval ROTC office illegal and said it violated university policy, the college declined to prosecute any of the students involved. This decision may have been made to avoid a repeat of violent Columbia campus confrontations between police and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968.

The ROTC headquarters was ultimately renamed the Malcolm X lounge as the SAAS organization demanded. It later became a hang-out spot for another future U.S. leader, Barack Obama, according to David Maraniss’ best-selling “Barack Obama: The Story.”

Holder told Columbia University’s graduating law students during a 2010 commencement speech that the 1970 incident happened “during my senior year,” but Holder was a freshman at the time. “[S]everal of us took one of our concerns — that black students needed a designated space to gather on campus — to the Dean [of Freshmen]’office. This being Columbia, we proceeded to occupy that office.”

Holder also claimed in his 2009 speech that he and his fellow students decided to “peacefully occupy one of the campus offices.” In contrast, the BSO’s website recounted its predecessor organization’s activities by noting that that “in 1970, a group of armed black students [the SAAS] seized the abandoned ROTC office.”

While that website is no longer online, a snapshot of its content from September 2010 is part of the archive.org database.

In a December 2010 GQ magazine profile of Holder, one of his Columbia friends confirmed that he and Holder were both part of the ROTC office takeover.

Holder particularly “connected with four other African-American students” at Columbia, correspondent Wil S. Hylton wrote. “We took over the ROTC lounge in Hartley Hall and created the Malcolm X Lounge,” said a laughing Steve Sims, one of those students.

Hylton described Sims as “the attorney general’s closest friend” and “a man Holder describes as his ‘consigliere.'”

The SAAS was part of a radicalized portion of the Columbia student body whose protest roots were hardened in the late 1960s. Its members collaborated with the SDS to stage a series of protests on the New York City campus in 1968, the year before Eric Holder arrived on campus.

Those earlier protests culminated in a separate armed takeover of Dean Henry Coleman’s office in which students held him hostage and stopped the construction of a gymnasium in the Morningside Heights neighborhood, near the campus.

The BSO reported on its website as recently as 2010 that those students were “armed with guns.”

Emboldened by their successes, SAAS leaders continued to press their demands, eventually working with local black radicals who were not college students. A young Eric Holder joined the fray in 1969 as a college freshman.

The SAAS also actively supported the Black Panthers and the Black Power movement, according to Stefan Bradley, professor of African-American studies at Saint Louis University and author of the 2009 book “Harlem vs. Columbia University.” He has described the Columbia organization as being separatist in nature.

“In 1969, SAAS has taken up a new campaign to establish a Black Institute on campus that would house a black studies program, an all-black admissions board, all-black faculty members, administrators and staff and they wanted the university to pay for it,” Bradley told an audience in 2009.

Though Columbia never met all of the black militants’ demands, it brought more black students to campus through its affirmative action program, introduced Black Studies courses and hired black radical Charles V. Hamilton — co-author of “Black Power” with Black Panther Party “Honorary Prime Minister” Stokely Carmichael (by then renamed Kwame Ture).

“The university hadn’t thought of all of this by itself,” said Bradley. “It took black students [in the SAAS] to do this.”

In March 1970 the SAAS released a statement supporting twenty-one Black Panthers charged with plotting to blow up department stores, railroad tracks, a police station and the New York Botanical Gardens.

The SAAS, along with the SDS and other radical campus groups, staged a campus rally on March 12, 1970 featuring Afeni Shakur — one of the Panthers out on bail and the future mother of rapper Tupac Shakur.

The rally’s purpose, The Columbia Daily Spectator reported, was to raise bail money for the twenty other Panthers and to call on District Attorney Frank Hogan to drop the charges. All 21 defendants would later be acquitted after a lengthy trial.

The April 21, 1970 SAAS raid on the Naval ROTC office and Dean Coleman’s office came one month after the Black Panther arrests. The Columbia Daily Spectator released a series of demands from the student leaders on April 23 in which they claimed to be occupying the ROTC office for the purpose of “self-determination and dignity.” They needed the space, they said, because of “the general racist nature of American society.”

In their statement, the SAAS leaders also decried “this racist university campus” — in particular its alleged “involvement in the continued political harassment of the Black Panther Party” — along with what they called a “lack of concern for Black people whether they be students or workers” and a “general contempt towards the beliefs of Black students in particular and Black people in general.”

“Black students recognize the necessity of not letting the university set a dangerous precedent in its dealings with Black people,” the statement read in part, “that is letting white people direct the action and forces that affect Black people toward goals they (white people) feel are correct.”

Among the black professors who publicly supported Holder and the SAAS during this period was Black history teacher Hollis Lynch, who is one of four professors Holder later said “shaped my worldview.”

Entering Columbia Law School in September 1973, Holder joined the Black American Law Students Association. Less than a month later, that organization joined other minority activist groups in a coalition that demanded the retraction of a letter to President Gerald Ford, signed by six Columbia professors, that argued against affirmative action and racial quotas.

“Merit should be rewarded, without regard to race, sex, creed, or any other external factor,” the professors wrote to President Ford. Following a campaign marked by what two of those professors called “rhetoric and names hurled” at them, they changed their position and denied they actually opposed affirmative action.

The Columbia Spectator’s editorial page later argued against affirmative action as a factor in university admissions, touching off another controversy with the coalition that included the Black American Law Students Association. “Affirmative action is just a nice name for a quota, and quotas are just a nice name for racism,” the editorial board wrote.

In response, the minority students’ coalition responded that “traditional academic criteria have a built-in bias” that leaves many minority students “automatically excluded.”

“[A]ffirmative action is neither racist nor sexist,” they wrote. “Rather it is opposition to it, which fails to provide alternative means for eradicating bias, that supports the racist and sexist status quo.”

As attorney general, Holder has defended the affirmative action policies that are now the status quo. In February 2012, Holder said during a World Leaders Forum at Columbia University that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.”

“Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

Holder has also come under fire for presiding over a Justice Department that declined to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who allegedly intimidated white voters outside a Philadelphia polling precinct in 2008.

Follow Charles on Twitter

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-participated-in-armed-takeover-of-former-columbia-university-rotc-office/


The story behind the story is the massive buildup of arms against average citizens in the name of combating terrorism in reality it is intended to keep a thumb on citizen insurrection that the Obama Administration has a fear of Citizen Militias being prepared to fight back against a federal government out of control.  Under the US Constitution each state has a sovereign right to protect themselves from the same…

This is not new, I’ve shared numerous articles on the militarization against the citizens.  Especially federal agencies, someone tell me why FEMA, IRS, postal service or the national park service needs a swat team, automatic weapons or armor or tons and tons and tons of ammunition?

On the one hand, local police need adequate protection when dealing with sieges of homes and gangs.  On the other hand there is no need to be arming federal agencies to the teeth when we already have the FBI, and the ATF, that covers about everything in the realm of federal law enforcement.  Not to mention each state has their own National Guard Armory.

Our Local Police Departments need adequate protection but it should be controlled by the Governors of each state, in regards to rules and regulations and training on when and how to use the equipment

This article should be required reading for any informed voter…

After Militarizing Police, Obama Urges “Peace” in Ferguson

Friday, 15 August 2014 10:01

Article Written by  Alex Newman

Article Link at the Bottom

During a public statement issued on August 14, Obama attacked local police in Ferguson, Missouri, for the heavily militarized and widely criticized response to unrest following the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Aside from inappropriately meddling in state and local affairs that, constitutionally speaking, should not be an official concern of the president or the federal government, the irony and stench of hypocrisy surrounding the whole situation and Obama’s role in militarizing the police has been largely overlooked so far.

It was the Obama administration, of course, that has done more to militarize local law enforcement than perhaps any other president in U.S. history. Among other troubling schemes that have accelerated under the current occupant of the White House: providing even more “surplus” military weapons from the Defense Department, and massive unconstitutional bribes from the Department of Homeland Security. Both schemes are aimed at federalizing and militarizing state and local police. The U.S. Constitution, of course, does not authorize any such programs.

As usual, though, Obama tried to score political points exploiting a tragedy his administration helped create. “I know that many Americans have been deeply disturbed by the images we’ve seen in the heartland of our country as police have clashed with people protesting,” the president said Thursday from Edgartown, Massachusetts, where he is once again on vacation. The comments marked at least the third time in recent years that the president has inappropriately and very publicly sought to insert himself into local and state matters involving law enforcement and perceived racial issues.

While pointing out the obvious fact that there is no excuse for violence against police or exploiting tragedies for vandalism and looting, Obama reserved most of his unsought “advice” for local officials. “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said. “And here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.”

Of course, few Americans would disagree with those statements. Across the country, people from all over the political spectrum have reacted in horror at the scenes coming out of Ferguson — looting, rioting, lawlessness, and a massive police presence that looked more like an occupying military force on a Middle Eastern battlefield than friendly local cops keeping order and peace in an American suburb. However, there are several red flags in Obama’s comments that represent the height of hypocrisy.

For instance, Obama has relentlessly waged what countless analysts have described as a “war on journalism.” Even top Obama apologists in the establishment media have expressed shock at the administration’s escalating assaults on the free press. From terrorizing sources and whistleblowers with threats of prosecution and prison for “espionage” to spying on reporters and labeling a journalist a “co-conspirator” in a case involving his reporting, countless experts have said the attacks on press freedom have reached unprecedented proportions under Obama.

Indeed, at about the same time Obama was pretending to be a defender of the free press from overzealous local cops — two reporters in Ferguson were arrested and released amid the turmoil — a massive coalition was gathering to demand an end to the administration’s war on journalism. According to media reports, representatives from the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Government Accountability Project and the Committee to Protect Journalists all gathered at the National Press Club to call on Attorney General Eric Holder to quit terrorizingNew York Times reporter James Risen for doing his job.

Another example of brazen hypocrisy stems from Obama’s statements about the police response. Among other comments, Obama announced that his scandal-plagued Justice Department would be investigating the actions of local law enforcement, both in the death of the unarmed man and the response to the unrest. “The Department of Justice is also consulting with local authorities about ways that they can maintain public safety without restricting the right of peaceful protest and while avoiding unnecessary escalation,” Obama claimed. “I made clear to the attorney general that we should do what is necessary to help determine exactly what happened and to see that justice is done.”

In his brief public statement, which also dealt with the ongoing chaos in Iraq linked to Obama’s own plot to arm Syrian jihadists, the president said he had spoken with Democrat Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. “I’m confident that working together, he’s going to be able to communicate his desire to make sure that justice is done and his desire to make sure that public safety is maintained in an appropriate way,” Obama said after having previously implied that police had not been acting in an “open and transparent” manner — another tragic irony coming from perhaps the most fanatically secretive administration in U.S. history.

But how did America end up with thousands of miniature armies as police departments armed with armored personnel carriers, tanks, grenade launchers, machine guns, battle helicopters, military costumes, and more — all doing the federal government’s bidding? The answer is simple: The federal government funded them, armed them, and now, in many respects, seeks to control them. And Obama has taken the programs to unprecedented new heights, handing out billions worth of “weapons of war” to local cops even while attacking the gun rights of Americans.

Consider that last year alone, the administration handed out over 150 so-called “mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles,” or MRAPs, used by U.S. forces in Iraq, to local police departments within the “Homeland.” The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, has been at the center of mounting controversy as it stockpiled the beastly military vehicles and massive quantities of ammunition for domestic use.

At the same time, federal efforts to unconstitutionally commandeer state and local law enforcement are accelerating, as this magazine has documented extensively. While the federal programs militarizing and seeking to federalize local police forces have been around for decades, they are accelerating and expanding at a record pace under the current administration. Even federal regulatory bureaucracies are getting SWAT teams.

All sides on the political spectrum have pointed to the same danger when it comes to showering local police with military hardware. Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, an attorney whose non-profit focuses on protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights, explained that, “while recycling unused military equipment might sound thrifty and practical, the ramifications are proving to be far more dangerous and deadly.” He added: “This is what happens when you have police not only acquiring the gear of American soldiers, but also the mindset of an army occupying hostile territory.”

In what could have been a warning about exactly what has happened this week in Ferguson, Whitehead also sounded the alarm about the dangerous consequences stemming from the militarizing of local police. “With police playing the part of soldiers on the battlefield and the American citizen left to play the part of an enemy combatant, it’s a pretty safe bet that this particular exercise in the absurd will not have a happy ending,” he said. Ferguson illustrated that clearly.

The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed similar fears. Last year, ACLU Center for Justice Senior Counsel Kara Dansky warned: “One of our concerns with this is it has a tendency to escalate violence.” As could be seen with local cops dressed in battle fatigues while riding on armored trucks aiming military rifles and sound canons at protesters this week in Missouri, that tendency is becoming increasingly obvious and impossible to ignore.

At least some lawmakers in Congress have pointed out the facts, too. “The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action,” explained Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in an op-ed following the controversial developments, highlighting what he said was especially troublesome for blacks targeted by militarized policing.

“Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem,” Paul explained. “Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies — where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.”

Unsurprisingly, law enforcement sources were not amused with Obama’s inappropriate meddling, either. “I would contend that discussing police tactics from Martha’s Vineyard is not helpful to ultimately calming the situation,” Executive Director Jim Pasco with the Fraternal Order of Police said in an interview with The Hill. “I think what he has to do as president and as a constitutional lawyer is remember that there is a process in the United States and the process is being followed, for good or for ill, by the police and by the county and by the city and by the prosecutors’ office.”

Perhaps the criticism of the heavy-handed and militarized police response is appropriate. However, if Obama was truly concerned, he would stop showering state and local authorities with military gear and federal “grants” aimed at further controlling and militarizing local police forces. Indeed, if the president really cared, he would quit trying to stoke racial tensions, too. And, instead of unconstitutionally meddling in state and local affairs, he would obey the Constitution.

Even the administration’s lawlessness and wild attitudes toward constitutional government are also spreading from the White House down to local police departments. Just last week, for instance, a New Jersey policeman sparked a national firestorm after claiming that, because Obama ignores the Constitution, local law enforcement is no longer required to respect it. “Obama has decimated the friggin’ Constitution,” the officer told a citizen. “So I don’t give a damn. Because if he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to.”

At least one point is clear: Thanks largely to the feds, police departments across America, which are supposed to be accountable to local communities rather than Obama or the federal government, have become dangerously militarized. For decades, The John Birch Society, an affiliate of this magazine, has been running a campaign to “Support Your Local Police and Keep Them Independent.” As the tragic events in Ferguson with federalized, battlefield-style policing illustrate clearly, American communities must take control of their local police departments — and keep them free from federal subsidies, militarization, and the accompanying federal control.

Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter@ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

Obama Flooding U.S. Streets With “Weapons of War” for Local Police

St. Louis Shooting Sparks Riots, Accusations, Outside Intervention

Local Black Leaders Nervous About Sharpton’s Presence in Ferguson

Obama War on Journalism: Feds Raid Reporter, Seize Notes

“We Don’t Have to Follow Constitution” Cop Resigns

U.S. Military Program Arming Local Police Expands

DHS Creates New Fusion Centers, Taking Control of Local Police

Impeachment Support Soars as Voters Say Feds “Out of Control”

Baltimore Police Major Attending UN “Peacekeeping” Course

Military Drills and Black Helicopters in U.S. Cities Spark Panic

Feds Requested Targets With Children and Pregnant Women

Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror

Article Source:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18916-after-militarizing-police-obama-urges-peace-in-ferguson?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=86daa3d266-The_Editors_Top_Picks_3_12_143_12_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8ca494f2d2-86daa3d266-289787165


NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           December 5, 2013 1:00 PM

The I-Word By Jonathan Strong

Seeking ways to limit the president’s executive overreach, Republicans still shy away from impeachment.  An academic was the first to cross the invisible line.

“The ultimate check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases, impeachment,” Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz told Representative Darrell Issa at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on the president’s duty to uphold the law.

With that first mention of the “i word,” leaks began springing from the dam that had been holding back the House GOP lawmakers united by frustration with President Obama’s executive abuses. Republicans have been watching impotently as Obama has walked all over the law, with increasing brazenness the further he gets into his tenure. His first term included major clashes over Congress’s subpoena power and, months before the election, the president’s imposition of the “DREAM Act” by fiat — something he had publicly said before was beyond his legal authority.

Almost a year into Obama’s second term, his unilateral delays of Obamacare and other legally questionable actions are now routine. He even threatened to veto a bill that would have ratified something he had done on his own without any clear authority, the delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.

“It’s a real problem,” House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte says. One of the biggest frustrations: Senate Democrats don’t seem to give a rip.

“To me, the Senate being complicit in watching the executive branch strip the powers of the Congress is absolutely despicable,” Goodlatte tells me. “You don’t hear a peep out of Harry Reid about the fact that prerogatives of Congress are being trampled upon by the executive branch.” Following Issa’s questions, Iowa Republican Steve King asked the expert witnesses what remedies Congress has for a president unbound by the law. Having dismissed the “power of the purse” as obviously ineffective (just look at the government shutdown, several lawmakers and witnesses pointed out), King moved on down the line to lawsuits and, finally, the remedy that shall not be named.

“Then the next recourse is, as Mr. Rozenkranz said, the word that we don’t like to say in this committee and that I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing,” King said.

King tells me the next day he didn’t want to distract from the president’s actions by saying the word out loud. But the experts at the witness stand didn’t shy away from radical ideas.

“There is a procedure in the Constitution that allows the people to amend the Constitution without going through Congress,” the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon offered. “That is another method where the people can try to restrain the executive.”

And Rozenkranz dismissed King’s timidity, enunciating the word like a dare, loud and clear.

“I don’t think you should be hesitant to say the word in this room. A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment. And if you find the president is willfully and repeatedly violating the Constitution. . . . I think that would be a clear case for impeachment,” he said.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent guest of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow during the Bush years, described the situation in severe terms.

“I really have great trepidation over where we are headed,” Turley said. “We are creating a new system here. . . . The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable. Within that system you have a rise of an uber-presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift.”

The situation, Turley later said, is the “most serious constitutional crisis, I believe, in my lifetime.”

Then the dam burst altogether. Responding to a hypothetical from King about the president’s declaring war without Congress’s assent, Cannon raised the idea of revolution.

“I think what Mr. King was getting at is, there is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints the Constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about the right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it. And that is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. But as I mentioned in my delivered testimony, if the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they. That is why this is a very, very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do — to wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations on people that the legislature did not approve.”

“An excellent conclusion!” exclaimed King.

That said, in a phone interview, Cannon admitted he can’t think of “anything” Obama could do in the next three years that would lead to rebellion. He regrets even mentioning it, he said, because it allowed people to impute a “nutty idea” to him (that today’s circumstances are serious enough to prompt talk of violent overthrow of the government).

Nevertheless, the fact that the House Judiciary Committee is entertaining such dire discussion shows how wantonly the House GOP feels Obama has transgressed the law — and how eager they are for a way to stop him.

“I don’t think he’s pushed the legal envelope. I think he’s shredded the legal envelope,” says Representative Tom McClintock of California. One problem, McClintock laments, is that younger generations don’t seem to be very upset about it.

“Ultimately it will come down to whether the owners of the Constitution insist that it be enforced with the votes they cast at the ballot box. So far this generation has been rather lax,” he says.

Like most Republicans I speak with, McClintock says impeachment is not on the horizon. But the possibility does increasingly pop up in conversations with conservatives on and off Capitol Hill.

Issa, who is locked in a legal battle with Attorney General Eric Holder over the House’s subpoena power, says impeachment is a “blunt instrument” and often an “inappropriate” one.

He points out that Holder, in arguing before a court that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute, noted Congress has the power of impeachment as a possible remedy.

“That, in a sense, is a dangerous thing for a president to say. I don’t know that objecting to a discovery order from the Congress is a high crime or misdemeanor,” Issa says. “But if they take away the tool of court review, and suggest that we only have one tool, then like a carpenter who’s only given a hammer, he’ll use it.”

“And, by the way, I have used a hammer to break a board in half because I didn’t have a saw,” Issa tells me.

Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the previous chairman of the Judiciary Committee, offers this tantalizing explanation for his silence: “The reason I can’t answer any impeachment questions is because any impeachment actions go through the Judiciary Committee, and I don’t want to have to recuse myself.”

The talk of impeachment and overthrow provoked predictable winces among GOP-leadership aides, and there is also a lot of residual disquiet about the tactic from the Clinton experience.

King, for example, notes the first time he set foot in the House Rayburn Office Building, in 1998, was to watch the Judiciary Committee impeachment proceedings against Clinton in person. Then a state senator, King watched as the Senate, in his view, perverted the process, lumping questions of whether Clinton was guilty of the charges in with the question of whether to remove him from office.

“That’s not gonna happen. We’ve been through that with Bill Clinton. I saw that up close and personal. I think I understand the political dynamics that unfolded there. You’ll never get an honest verdict out of the United States Senate if Harry Reid is going to be the majority leader,” he says.

The GOP’s most promising effort is the lawsuits pending in courts across the land. Cannon, for instance, is bringing a legal challenge to Obamacare, contending the law doesn’t authorize subsidies or tax penalties in states using the federal exchange.

Simon Lazarus, the Democrats’ legal witness at the Judiciary hearing Tuesday, struggled mightily to articulate a plausible defense against the argument.

Another Obamacare challenge is over the fact that the bill included tax increases but originated in the Senate. Under the Constitution, tax bills are supposed to start in the House.

The union representing federal employees who enforce the southern border have a pending lawsuit over Obama’s unilateral DREAM Act.

Issa just won a round against Holder on the subpoena matter. And there are a good number of other suits.

Several legal victories in a row could snowball into momentum, bringing the public’s attention to the issue. The Judiciary Committee hearing itself is a sign that the GOP is going to be taking Obama to the mat on his legal authority more than in the past.

In the meantime, though, the House GOP seems, at times, helpless to stop Obama. It’s that sense — that they’re flailing, and there are no other options — that could finally have Republicans confidently uttering the i-word.

— Jonathan Strong is a political reporter for National Review Online.

A lot has happened since this article was written in 2013; in fact the Obama Administration has wholeheartedly embraced the impeachment idea, the Democrats are making big money off of it.

However, I for one have not, as in 1998 when Congress attempted to impeach Bill Clinton for getting on National TV and lying to the American People, “I did not have sex with that woman” the American people were furious.  Fast forward 13 + years later and there has been endless lies out of the White House and the Democrat led Senate and to date nothing has been done about it.

Why you ask?  Because the Conservatives do not have enough votes in the Senate, just like in 1998 to make it stick! 

So, there is NO point in screaming impeachment when there is not enough votes in Congress and they don’t have the backing of the American People!  The only way to beat the Democrats at their own game is to gain an overwhelming majority in both houses and then Obama will be forced to face the music and the DOJ will be also forced to comply with Congress in the various investigations that they are currently obstructing and a lot more of the truth will come out as a result…  

It all boils down to the American People and when they get tired of all of this lawlessness, and the only way that will happen is when they start feeling the pain from all of these outrageous executive orders that have trumped the legislaturers in Congress.

Posted by: knuckledragginsam | July 30, 2014

Historical Timeline of the Demoncrat Party


Trail of Tears (1830’s)

The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson (also his successor, Martin Van Buren), herded the Five Civilized Tribes(Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) into camps, tormented them, burned their homes, pillaged their belongings, and forced them to relocate west of the Mississippi. Thousands died along the way.

Tammany Hall (1845-1932)

For eighty seven years the Society of St. Tammany, the Democrat Party political machine in New York City, ran the city like a third-world dictatorship using graft, corruption, and the threat of violence—perhaps most infamously under William M. “Boss” Tweed who was convicted in 1877 of stealing $25–$45 million from taxpayers through political corruption. (Later estimates ranged as high as $200 million, or $8 billion in current dollars.) Tammany Hall lasted until Democrat MayorJimmy Walker, facing corruption charges, was forced from office and fled to Europe in 1932. Republican reformer Fiorello Henry LaGuardia was elected mayor in 1934.

Fugitive Slave Act (1850)

Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Act which stripped blacks — even free citizens who had never been slaves — of their right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus if they were merely accused of being a slave.

Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)

Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing settlers in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska to determine whether they would allow slavery. As a result, anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions flooded the territories to win the vote, leading to a bloody area-wide civil war. Disgusted by the passage of this legislation, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democrat parties founded the Republican Party… to stop the spread of slavery and eventually abolish it.

The beating of Charles Sumner (1856)

After Republican Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave an impassioned anti-slavery speech on the floor of the Senate, Democrat Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina, feeling his state and his uncle had been insulted, confronted Sumner in the senate chamber and beat him nearly to death using a heavy cane with a sold gold head while a fellow Democrat with a gun prevented rescuers from intervening. Brooks struck the first blow before Sumner had a chance to rise from his seat and continued beating him after he was unconcious. It was three years before the senator could resume his duties. Republican Congressman Anson Burlingame from New York subsequently indicted Brooks for cowardice in a speech, causing Brooks to challenge him to a duel which Burlingame enthusiastically accepted… whereupon Brooks chickened out and refused to show.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 

Dred Scott, a slave, asked a U.S. Circuit Court to award him his freedom because he and his master had resided in a state (Illinois) and a territory (Wisconsin) where slavery was banned. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the ruling was twofold: one, that any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, was not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court; and two, that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in territory beyond the original thirteen colonies. The rulings were capricious, illogical, racist, and cruel, and the Dred Scott Decision is generally considered the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. At the time the decision was made, the court comprised seven Democrats, one Republican, and one Whig. The final vote was 7–2, the Republican and Whig dissenting.

Civil War (1860)

Fearing the loss of their slaves after the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republicn president, the pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party, comprising the majority and concentrated in the slave states, decided to secede from the union, precipitating the Civil War and resulting in 1,030,000 casualties including 670,000 deaths.

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (1865)

On April 14, 1865, rabid Democrat and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth shot Republican President Abraham Lincoln in the back of the head while the president was watching a play at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C.

Ku Klux Klan

Disgruntled Democrats, upset about the Confederacy’s defeat in the Civil War and the granting of voting rights to freed slaves, formed an extremist group in Tennessee to further their political aims through violence and intimidation. The original group, led for a time by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, petered out. Two later iterations of the group eventually spread throughout the South and even into northern states. The Tuskegee Institute estimates 3,446 black Republicans and 1,297 white Republicans were lynched by the KKK between 1882 and 1968.

13th Amendment

Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th Amendment banning slavery, while 63 percent of Democrat senators and 78 percent of Democrat House members voted against it.

New Orleans raid on GOP (1866)

Democrats in the New Orleans government ordered police to raid an integrated meeting of Republicans, killing forty and injuring one hundred fifty.

President Andrew Johnson

Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln upon his assasination, vetoed an extension of the Freedman’s Bureau which aided freed slaves and then vetoed the first civil rights act which was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves (eventually accomplished by the 14th Amendment in spite of Johnson’s opposition). Eager to send a message to “Radical Republicans,” he also wanted to veto a bill to enfranchise blacks in the District of Columbia but the measure stalled in the Senate after passage by the House. (The measure was finally passed over Johnson’s veto in 1867.)

40 acres and a mule

During Major General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea” in 1865 he issued a Special Field Order (No.15) providing that land (and sometimes Army mules) be given to freed slaves. By June 1865 about 10,000 freed slaves were settled on 400,000 acres in Georgia and South Carolina. When Democrat Andrew Johnson ascended to the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination, he countermanded Sherman’s orders and returned the land to its previous white owners. On February 5, 1866, U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced legislation to implement “40 acres and a mule” as official policy, but the legislation was successfully opposed by Johnson.

14th Amendment

94 percent of Republican senators and 96 percent of Republican House members voted for the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted against it.

Presidential impeachment (1868)

Angered by Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s thwarting of congressional wishes regarding Reconstruction, the House impeached him on February 24, the first of only two U.S. presidents ever impeached (both Democrats). On May 16, after furious backroom dealing and promises from Johnson to various senators, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.

Georgia expels blacks from state legislature

On September 3, twenty five black legislators in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority on the grounds that the new state constitution did not guarantee blacks the right to hold office.

Opelousas, Louisiana

On September 28, when freed blacks rallied to stop an attackon a white Republican newspaper editor, white Democrats massacred three hundred of them.

1868 campaign motto

Democrats Horatio Seymour and Francis Blair ran for president and vice president, respectively, using the motto, “This Is A White Man’s Country: Let White Men Rule.”

15th Amendment (1870)

When Southern Democrats balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Republicans in Congress, in near unanimity, passed the 15th Amendment guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Democrat voted against it.

Democrats seize Texas state government (1874)

On January 17, armed Democrats seized the Texas state government to prevent integration by Republicans.

Storming of Louisiana statehouse

Incensed by Republican Governor William Kellogg’s racially integrated administration, Democrats stormed the Louisiana statehouse on September 14, killing twenty seven people and commandeering the state government. The “White League” retreated when Republican President Ulysses S. Grant sent federal troops to intervene a few days later.

1875 Civil Rights Act (1875)

Guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, the legislation was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant after being passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

Jim Crow (1876-1965)

In response to civil rights laws enacted by Republicans duringReconstruction, Democrats at the local and state level began legislating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy. These were called “Jim Crow” laws after a character designed to belittle and mock black intelligence, played in blackface by white actor Thomas D. Rice. Most of the gains made by blacks during Reconstruction were lost. They were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but establishment Democrats kept passing more and more laws to restrict voter registration, voting, and ability to run for office, with the result that political participation by blacks and poor whites decreased. Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy/comprehension tests, residency rules, and record-keeping requirements.

Anti-lynching legislation (1882-1968)

Nearly 200 times in 86 years, Republicans in the House passed anti-lynching legislation, each time killed by Democrats in the Senate. Consequently, the United States Congress, to its shame, never did pass anti-lynching legislation. In 2005, a Republican-controlled Senate officially apologized for the failure.

Enforcement Act (1894)

Democrat President Grover Cleveland and a Democrat Congress repealed the Enforcement Act, which gave black voters federal protection. The law was originally written and proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner in 1870 and finally enacted in 1875 by a Republican Congress. Similar protection of civil rights did not return until passage of the remarkably similar 1964 Civil Rights Act… again over the opposition of Democrats.

Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 (1898)

When a Republican mayor and biracial city council were elected in Wilmington, North Carolina, Democrat white supremacists attacked and destroyed the Daily Record, the state’s only black-owned newspaper, and then rampaged through the city killing and rioting. An estimated 100 blacks were killed, more than 2,000 blacks subsequently moved out of the city permanently (turning Wilmington from a black majority to a white majority), the mayor and city council were forced to resign at gunpoint, and then were replaced by Democrats… the only recorded coup d’etat in U.S. history.

President Woodrow Wilson (1913)

Shortly after his inauguration, Democrat President Woodrow Wilson fired most of the African Americans who held posts within the federal government, re-segregated the Mail Service, re-segregated the Treasury Department, and then segregated the Navy which had always been integrated. This was “as far as possible from being a movement against the Negroes,” said Wilson. “I sincerely believe it to be in their interest.”

Birth of a Nation (1915)

Democrat President Woodrow Wilson invited his Cabinet and the entire U.S. Supreme Court to the executive mansion’s first film presentation, a screening of D. W. Griffith’s racist masterpiece, Birth of a Nation, which depicts “the Ku Klux Klan’s heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated blacks…” portrayed by white actors in black face.

Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill (1922)

Filibustering Senate Democrats killed a Republican bill passed by the House that made lynching a federal crime. (They killed it again in 1923 and 1924.)

“Klanbake convention” (1924)

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Ku Klux Klan gatherings in American history. When a minority of delegates to the convention tried to condemn the Klan in the party’s platform, the proposal was shot down by the overwhelming number of Klan supporters within the party. Outside the convention, the Klan mobilized a celebratory rally in a nearby New Jersey field that was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory, and a cross burning.

Tea at the White House (1929)

Democrats erupted in nationwide protests when First Lady Lou Hoover, wife of Republican President Herbert Hoover, invited the wife of Republican congressman Oscar De Priest, a black man, to the White House for tea.

Abuse of Supreme Court by FDR (1933-1945)

Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt appointed two well-known Southern segregationists to the Supreme Court, James Byrnes from South Carolina and former Ku Klux Klansman Hugo Black from Alabama who filibustered an anti-lynching bill as a senator and was an outspoken anti-Catholic. Not satisfied with merely nominating replacements for retirees, in 1937 Roosevelt proposed legislation that would add six justices to the court, a “court packing” scheme that would create a majority of Democrats favorable to his political agenda. The power grab fortunately failed at the time but was resurrected successfully by Barack Obama in 2013.

Roosevelt & Truman administrations (1933-1953)

During the combined twenty years of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations, Democrats stopped all civil rights legislation.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill (1937)

Frequently called the “court packing plan,” the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill was a scheme by Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt to add six more justices to the Supreme Court so he could pack the court with his own people and thereby control the court’s decisions.

Brown v. Board of Education (1956)

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark 1954 United States Supreme Court ruling declaring separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. Two years later, still miffed, 97 Democrats in Congress condemned the decision and pledged to continue segregation.

Little Rock school integration (1957)

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock, Arkansas, public schools over the strenuous resistance of Democrat Governor Orval Faubus.

1957 Civil Rights Act

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill after it survived the longest one-man filibuster in Senate history, 24 hours 18 minutes by Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond. In the House, 90% of Republicans voted for the bill versus 52% of Democrats. In the Senate, 100% of Republicans voted for the bill versus 62% of Democrats.

1960 Civil Rights Act (1960)

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill after it survived a five-day filibuster by eighteen Senate Democrats.

1960 presidential election

Democrat John F. Kennedy stole the election from Republican Richard Nixon with a three-part crime spree: one, he broke into Nixon’s campaign offices to steal incriminating information that was leaked to newspapers in the days before the election (foreshadowing Watergate twelve years later); two, he enlisted the help of his father’s Mafia connections in stealing Illinois’ electoral votes; and three, Lyndon Johnson’s Democrat machine in Texas stuffed the ballot boxes with Kennedy votes while destroying Nixon votes. (45,000 disallowed Nixon votes in Democrat Counties were destroyed by fire before they could be examined because officials said they had “no room for storage.” Nixon lost Texas by 50,000 votes.)

Meeting of segregationists (1961)

A July 23 meeting of leading segregationists was held in Atlanta to organize opposition to the civil rights movement. In attendance were four state governors: Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, Orval Faubus of Arkansas, John Patterson of Alabama, and Ross Barnett of Mississippi — all Democrats. Strategies discussed included using the White Citizens Council, a white supremacist organization, to mobilize political support for racial segregation.

1964 Civil Rights Act (1964)

Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill after former Ku Klux Klan “Exalted Cyclops” Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee’s Al Gore, Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. In total, 82 percent of congressional Republicans voted for the bill versus only 66 percent of Democrats. After signing the bill and using deft news media spin to steal credit for what was essentially a Republican accomplishment (again), Johnson cynically said, “That’ll keep the niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

Presidential impeachment (1998)

After the Starr Report showed that Democrat President Bill Clinton lied under oath during a deposition and obstructed justice during the subsequent investigation, the House impeached him on December 19, the second of only two U.S. presidents ever impeached (both Democrats). On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted 50-50 along party lines, well short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction, with Democrats claiming perjury and obstruction did not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

President Barack Obama (2008)

The Democrat Party nominated and successfully ran a man for president without bothering to ascertain whether he was constitutionally eligible for the office and in spite of the fact that his campaign engaged in election fraud to get on the ballot.

Obamacare (2009-2010)

In the dead of night on Christmas Eve 2009, the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, through the use of skulduggery, bribery, questionable appointees, election fraud, and arguably-unconstitutional legislative finagling, managed to glean the necessary 60 votes to pass H.R. 3590, a House bill originally intended to fine tune housing tax credits for the military. Senate Democrats gutted it of every single word (including the title) and replaced them with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The gutting was necessary to pretend the legislation originated in the House, as required by the Constitution. Then in 2010, the Democrat-controlled House, realizing any re-vote in the Senate would fail because Republican Scott Brown had replaced Democrat appointee Paul Kirk, and lacking the courage to go on the record voting for the Senate bill, simply “deemed” it passed without a vote. Final result: undemocratically-enacted federal government control of U.S. health care against the wishes of most Americans and without a single Republican vote.

Court packing (2013)

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unilaterally changed procedural rules written by Thomas Jefferson and followed by Senators of all political parties for over two centuries. The goal was to stop Republican filibustering of judicial nominees. This blatant power grab, reminiscent of Roosevelt’s court packing attempt in 1937, enabled President Barack Obama to add three Democrat judges favorable to his political agenda to the eight-judge D.C. Circuit Court, the most important federal court after the Supreme Court.

4 Comment(s) so far »

August 31, 2013 – You neglected to include the Japanese Internment in 1942 by FDR.

“President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate “military areas” as “exclusion zones,” from which “any or all persons may be excluded.” This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders. The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, “The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding.” (Wikipedia)

– Rita M., Detroit

April 19, 2013 – The Democrat Party has a long history of radical violence, race baiting and criminality but now it’s been hijacked by the extreme left. So the Democrat party remains a hotbed of radical violence, race baiting and criminality, but now from a Marxist point of view. – Elrond Hubbard, IHTM

  1. P. replies: In other words, they’ve always been in favor of slavery but they’ve gone from wanting slavery for some to wanting slavery for all.

April 19, 2013 – Question this Brooks senator… how come he didn’t go to prison? I will make damn sure to post this everywhere I can. Thanks! –KimmyQueenIHTM

April 19, 2013 – “The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson (also his successor, Martin Van Buren), herded the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) into camps, tormented them, burned their homes, pillaged their belongings, and forced them to relocate west of the Mississippi.” Modern 1/32 Cherokee Lizzy Warren’s ancestor may have been one of the rounder-uppers. – Bonfire of the Absurdities, IHTM

Go to for the full story: http://www.jpattitude.com/DemocratPartyTimeline.php


It looks as though the Iranians are attempting to up the game in the nuclear reduction talks with the Obama administration and attempting to interfere in Congressional measures to slow down the Iranians steady march towards a nuclear weapon.

I would on the one hand be very concerned about this only because the Obama administration has had a poor track record on foreign affairs especially with Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Russia, Pakistan and most recently the European Union.

On the other hand, being a cold war veteran, I know after more than 40 years of the Soviet Union stationing nuclear submarines off our coasts and nearly triggering a nuclear war in the 1960’s there is absolutely no way that the US Navy is going to let this puny little Iranian Navy intimidate the United States. Unless of course there is more to the story than the Obama Administration is informing us about, for example, if we look back in our history more than 60 years ago prior to and during the outbreak of WW II, there was the Axis between the Germans, Japan, and Italy this turned out to be a dark day in history for the world when these countries united to unleash destruction and devastation on humanity.

China has been flexing their muscles in recent years by taking on the United States and Japan, challenging territorial boundaries in the Pacific, pushing high speed missile technology to counter our ability to shoot down their offensive capability to land a nuclear weapon in our country or their technological advances in destroying our GPS, Weather and Spy Satellites.

Putin interfering in US Foreign Affairs and Iranians sponsoring Al-Kiada in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and don’t forget Iran has been working with North Korea for more than a decade on a nuclear weapon which it appears they now have and is now working on ballistic capabilities.

Each one of these individually is something America could probably handle but when you combine all of these developments every American should be very concerned. So, as American citizens we should keep a very close eye on what our federal government is doing and above all we should be demanding transparency with this administration, support of one political party over another should not determine the outcome of whether we will continue to be safe from attack by our enemies, our enemies are watching and they see the divisiveness and are taking full advantage of it, so be very concerned, this could all backfire on the Obama Administration very soon if we are not careful.

 

The following article is from the Washington Free Beacon

http://freebeacon.com/iranian-navy-commander-vows-to-sink-u-s-warships/

 

Iranian Navy Commander Vows to Sink U.S. Warships

 

War rhetoric comes as Tehran enters U.S. waters


An Iranian warship / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
Follow @Kredo0 
February 9, 2014 4:10 pm

A top Iranian naval commander threatened to destroy U.S. warships and kill American soldiers just a day after Iranian vessels approached U.S. waters for the first time in history.

“The Americans can sense by all means how their warships will be sunk with 5,000 crews and forces in combat against Iran and how they should find its hulk in the depths of the sea,” Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, the commander of the elite Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy, was quoted as saying Sunday in the regional press.

Fadavi issued these threats just a day after Iranian war vessels were reported to have approached U.S. maritime borders.

“Iran’s military fleet is approaching the United States’ maritime borders, and this move has a message,” Iranian Admiral Afshin Rezayee Haddad was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Iran dispatched the war fleet in “response to Washington’s beefed up naval presence in the Persian Gulf,” where American ships are stationed to help keep international shipping lanes safe, according to the report.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also took aim at the United States on Sunday when he urged Air Force commanders to “know the enemy well.”

“The Iranian nation should pay attention to the recent [nuclear] negotiations and the rude remarks of the Americans so that everyone gets to know the enemy well,” Khamenei was quoted as saying in the state-run press.

“The Americans speak in their private meetings with our officials in one way, and they speak differently outside these meetings; this is hypocrisy and the bad and evil will of the enemy and the nation should observe all these cases precisely,” he said.

Iranian military leaders continued to threaten the United States – it’s principal nuclear negotiating partner – well into Sunday, when another top Iranian Navy commander claimed that the United States does not have the courage or ability to attack Iran.

“Were the enemy able to inflict damage on us, it would do so; [you must] rest assured that they can’t,” Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told fellow navy personnel during a ceremony celebrating “the 35th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution.”

As the United States and its international allies seek to ensure that Iran is complying with a recently inked nuclear accord aimed at rolling back portions of its contested program, Iranian military officials have become increasingly confrontational.

These officials say they are angered by Washington’s vow to keep the military option against Iran on the table.

A top IRGC commander recently stated that “the slightest military move by the U.S. will be reciprocated by Iran’s harshest response,” which would “recognize no boundary”.

It’s unclear exactly how Tehran’s threats are impacting ongoing talks between Iran and the West, which is working to ink a final nuclear deal with Iran in the next six months.

Iran’s defense minister continued to admonish Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration in remarks on Sunday, claiming that “U.S. officials cannot prevent [Iran] from continuing its nuclear fuel production.”

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan vowed to crush U.S. forces and said, “Iran will never allow the country’s nuclear fuel production cycle come to a halt,” according to a report in Fars.

A Pentagon spokesman did not immediately respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on Iran’s war moves.

However, an anonymous defense official dismissed Iran’s approach towards U.S. waters and stated that they “are free to operate in international waters,”according to Israel Hayom.

©2014 All Rights Reserved


Legislative Nullification
Downloaded on 1/28/2014 at http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17484-wall-street-journal-takes-notice-nullification-trend-is-spreading

Saturday, 25 January 2014 12:45

Wall Street Journal Takes Notice: Nullification “Trend Is Spreading”
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Although some self-described “conservatives” now claim that nullification is unconstitutional, others view nullification as a proper and constitutional approach for checking federal overreach and are working to apply this approach through state legislatures. Taking notice, the Wall Street Journal published an article on its website sketching the various efforts across the country to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government.
As the Journal article reports, state legislators in California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Indiana are stepping up and stopping the enforcement of various federal acts within the borders of their states.

The “trend,” the author writes, is “spreading.” It would need to, to match the spread of the federal kraken’s tentacles into every aspect of life and into every fundamental liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

Specifically mentioned in the Wall Street Journal piece are federal attempts to regulate firearm possession, to build National Security Agency (NSA) listening posts in several states, and to force Americans regardless of ability or desire to purchase an approved health insurance plan.

Regarding this last overreach, the Wall Street Journal reports, “Conservative lawmakers in at least seven states have proposed laws that would prohibit state agencies and officials from helping the federal government implement the federal healthcare law and would authorize the state’s attorney general to sue violators.”

At The New American, we will continue to publish and praise every attempt by state lawmakers to check federal usurpation and to nullify every one of its unconstitutional acts, every time.

In “clarification” of its article on nullification, the Wall Street Journal notes:

An earlier version of this post stated that such state laws seem to implicate the U.S. constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict. Rather, such laws might be allowed under Supreme Court rulings that, with some exceptions, prevent Congress from compelling state officials to execute federal law.
That update corrected half of the mistake, but revealed another error.

First, let’s dismiss this recurring and ridiculous idea that somehow any federal law “trumps state law when the two conflict.”

The “Supremacy Clause” (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

Read that again: “in pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

If only every journalist, every talk show host, and every state legislator could understand this simple fact: Whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. In that case, they are “merely acts of usurpation” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance of that authority.

The Founding Fathers understood this. For example, speaking at the convention considering ratification of the new Constitution in New York, part-time Constitutional Convention attendee Alexander Hamilton said:

I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.

He put a finer point on the subject in The Federalist, No. 33:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.

Other founders, speaking in other state ratification conventions, expressed the same understanding of the “supremacy” of federal law.

At the Pennsylvania convention, signer of the Declaration of Independence Thomas McKean said:
The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states.

Down in North Carolina, Federalist leader and famed jurist James Iredell echoed the theme:
When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.
Couldn’t be much clearer than that.

Next, to his credit, the author of the Wall Street Journal article mentions that a Supreme Court ruling “might” “prevent Congress from compelling state officials to execute federal law.”

Although he doesn’t identify it, the tactic referred to by the author is a well-established principle of federalism called anti-commandeering.

Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.” While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty,” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).

Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:
The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the Supreme Court and won.

There is much more “ammo” in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!

The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained: As Madison expressed it: “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.

Although it is encouraging to read about its growth in the pages of the mainstream press, the need for nullification to continue spreading is great. The government in Washington, D.C. is out of control and it is time for every citizen to demand that every state legislator perform his constitutionally imposed duty to protect the Constitution.
The best way to do this is to reverence our founding document by educating ourselves as to the legitimate relationship between the states and the feds and then insist that the limits on power established in the Constitution are respected and enforced.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 715 other followers

%d bloggers like this: