I started blogging around 5 years ago because the prospects for the future of America was looking pretty dim to me and I felt I had to do something.
The Democrat party’s full takeover by communists was stunningly alarming as was the Republicans embrace of the RINO John ‘cross the aisle’ McCain as their standard bearer.
Even though the major media wasn’t reporting on the background of Barak Hussein Obama, the information was available to anyone with half a brain to do the research on the internet.
The prospect of this Grand Malignant Narcissists Muslim communist from Kenya getting into the White House scared the living daylights out of me.
That he was going to declare martial law was a given to me, and a lot of my first posts were warnings about that. He didn’t declare martial law as quickly as I was afraid he would. I was wrong you say, well no, I was just ahead of my time. Read on:
'2nd term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect'
by Bob Unruh
There always have been those few who have launched diatribes over the dictatorial actions of any given U.S. presidential administration, over civil rights, foreign affairs, the economy, the draft or a dozen other topics – even though the Constitution was written specifically to prevent the collection of too much power by one branch of government.
Now, again, there are words like “egocentric megalomaniac” being ascribed to the White House, and warnings about detention camps and government surveillance of its citizens.
But where previous generations of warnings emanated from lone wolves with their fax machines in dusty spare rooms, the current alarms are being issued by the likes of Investors Business Daily, First Amendment authority Nat Hentoff, New York Times best-selling author Robert Ringer and their equals.
“A second term free of electoral restraints [for Obama] may be a frightening prospect,” IBD wrote in a commentary in the last week. “This is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s ‘unprecedented’ review of Obamacare.”
The publication pointed out that the Obama administration already is in contempt of court – in a court dispute over its ban on oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.
When U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled that the Obama Interior Department unconstitutionally imposed an offshore drilling moratorium, the agency “simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.”
“Judge Feldman was not amused. ‘Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,’ Feldman said in his ruling. ‘Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium …. provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt,’” the editorial said.
The issue recently was brought into the headlines by comments from Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst who said, “I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation. Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation.
“That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing,” Napolitano said.
His comments came after statements from Obama that the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t take the “unprecedented” action of actually overturning the Obamacare law, even though that is exactly what courts do when justices determine the legislation is unconstitutional.
“I think he [Obama] has some problems with understanding the Constitution, or accepting limitations on his power,” said Napolitano. “Look, they’re equal branches of government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.”
His comments came recently on Neil Cavuto’s program, when the discussion turned to the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and Obama’s verbal attack on the court shortly after the oral arguments.
Here are Napolitano’s comments:
“No president in modern times has questioned [the Supreme Court's] authority. They have questioned the way the authority has been exercised,” he said. “Not their right to make the decision.
“This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson was in the White House,” he said.
Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the state of New Jersey. He tried more than 150 jury trials during his time on the bench from 1987 to 1995, including criminal, civil, equity and family cases.
For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year.
Other warnings that have been issued:
- Erik Rush, a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare, including “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” wrote about the New Black Panthers, and how their “advancing Marxist agenda is being not-so-subtly choreographed from Barack Obama’s White House.”
“Civil unrest is an Obama administration objective, since it will facilitate crises sufficient for the president to justify suspensions of civil rights. Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s recent National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, as well as others, have certainly paved the way for such action.
“The question of a fair election in November is also something that deserves our attention. We can take it as given that voter fraud will abound at the hands of ACORN and other like-minded fringe organizations … All of this illustrates the paramount importance of continuing to beat the drum of Obama’s communism in unequivocal terms, regardless of the mincing ridicule we will draw from liberals…”
- Ringer wrote,“I began warning about Barack Obama’s dictatorial ambitions before he even won the 2008 presidential election … Obama’s recent contention that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for the Supreme Court to overrule congressional legislation had dictatorship written all over it.
“I will say yet again what I have been saying for more than three years: If polls indicate that Obama is going to win the upcoming election, no problem. He’ll keep flashing that fake Barry Obama grin until Nov. 7, then move swiftly to begin unleashing a dictatorial full monty – consisting of more regulations, higher taxes and less freedom – that will shock all but his staunchest Marxist allies.
“Nothing will be off limits – a national police force, instant citizenship for all Third World people … forced equalization of income (except for Obama’s wealthy supporters), widespread use of tax audits to carry out vendettas against enemies … suspension of habeas corpus … and much, much more.
“On the other hand, two or three months before the election, if the polls clearly show that Obama is going to go down in defeat, I believe there’s better than a 50-50 chance of a major ‘emergency’ coincidentally making its appearance, convincingly manufactured in such a way as to cause the average entitlement junkie to agree that we must rally around the president and ‘postpone’ the November elections.”
- Craige McMillan, longtime WND commentary author, said, “Why do you think Big Sis needs 20,000 drones patrolling the skies over America and NSA needs a new listening post to read and listen to every personal communication between every American citizen and archive it forever? … Step out of line and the police don’t even need a warrant to download your location data and buddy lists from your cell phone. Then they can go around and talk to your pals about your terrorist tendencies.”
- Nat Henthoff, nationally known authority on the First Amendment,wrote about plans to begin, starting in 2013, for the government to being monitoring and databasing “any form of communication.”
He described the new National Security Agency’s new Utah center – “more than five times larger than the U.S. Capitol” where “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cellphone calls and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails – parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases…” will be archived.
“We are not yet a police state. The First Amendment is still functioning … But with the NSA burrowing ceaselessly into our once very private lives, where are the reminders of the Declaration of Independence and its indictments of King George III?”
- Mychal Massie, the chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, also is on record.”Many say Barack Obama is the most divisive, egocentric megalomaniac ever to hold his office. Others say he is the most ruthless and defiantly determined Marxist-Leninist ever to become president. I say he is, by definition and actions, both.
- Vox Day, WND columnist, wrote, “It is becoming increasingly clear that the federal government is completely and utterly out of control, spewing nonsense, issuing irrational threats and stumbling around the world stage like a belligerent drunk with an empty wallet … Americans no longer enjoy the limited government of their forefathers. They suffer from limitless government. TSA is an apt acronym. But it does not stand for the Transportation Security Administration; it stands for the Totalitarian State of America.
As a presidential candidate Obama called for a “national civilian security force” that would be as big and as well-funded as the half-trillion dollar U.S. military. And a study a short time later confirmed that there are several ways to create the suggested “Stability Police Force” so that it legally could operate inside the U.S. borders.
One of the top recommendations in the report from the Rand Corp. was that the capacity and management operations of the U.S. Marshals Service be beefed up and handed the assignment.
The study was released in 2009, only months after Obama made his presidential campaign call for a civilian force as big and as costly as the U.S. military.
In a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set. We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
WND reported when a copy of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama’s specific references to the new force.
A video of his statements is posted here:
The opening of the Rand Corp. report was focused on providing “Stability Police Force” services outside of the U.S. borders. A company spokesman told WND that the report focused exclusively on the idea of a structure that could move into war-torn or riot-damaged cities or nations overseas and restore order.
However, a reading of the text of the report makes it clear that similar concerns about the behavior of U.S. residents were being evaluated, too.
It noted that the plans for the $1 billion a year effort would have to be structured carefully so as not to infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act ban on U.S. military operations inside the U.S.
“The discussions … made clear that the MP option would likely not be available for domestic policing. This makes this option [fulltime and reserve, as the hybrid option would not be viable due to the fact that military personnel could not be embedded in civilian domestic law enforcement agencies…] much more expensive.”
The report discussed the possibility of creating a new agency inside the Department of Defense but noted, “It is unlikely that a military agency would be permitted to perform domestic policing functions … Because of this, the new agency would likely perform SPF functions better than the MP option due to a better ability to create a policing culture, but worse than the Marshals Service option due to the fact that it could not do policing tasks day-to-day.”
The report said the U.S. Secret Service also could be an option: “Much like the Marshals Service, the Secret Service focuses on law enforcement missions within the United States. When not deployed abroad, an SPF housed in the Secret Service could perform a wide range of domestic functions without running into legal barriers.”
A company official was unable to explain the study’s references to policing in the United States.
The Colorado Springs event wasn’t the only time Obama preached of his requirement for a “civilian security” force.
Radio talk show Mark Levin discussed it in a broadcast:
He cited Obama’s statement at a dedication ceremony for a facility at the National Defense University.
There, Obama said, “American must also balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We cannot continue to push the burden onto our military alone, nor leave dormant any aspect of the full arsenal of American capability. That’s why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and to developing our civilian national security capabilities.”
What? Levin said.
“What does that mean? … Is he crazy? … He needs a civilian national security force … just as powerful … as our military?”
“The military has tanks, advanced weapons. What does he mean? … I know what his ideology is. That’s why I’m getting nervous…. Will the shirts be brown? Will they be clicking their heels as they walk?”
The Rand report also cited the Special Operations Group, which is headquartered at Camp Beauregard, La.
“It consists of about 100 deputies who respond to emergencies such as natural disasters, civil disturbances, and terrorist incidents and restores order during riots and mob violence. The SOG conducts missions in fugitive apprehension, high-profile prisoner movements, witness security operations, national emergencies and civil disorders. SOG deputies receive specialized tactical training, including crowd control and quelling civil disorder.”
The report continued, “During the 2000 World Trade Organization protests in the nation’s capitol, SOG teams played a key role in crowd control. They also took responsibility for protecting dignitaries going to and from the conference.”
Further, during protests in Puerto Rico, “The SOG was asked by the Navy on six separate occasions to quell disturbances. In calling upon the Marshals Service, the Navy was able to avoid concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act that might have arisen had it undertaken an armed mission in Puerto Rico.”
The report said specifically that should such a force be created under the military police division, “relief from the Posse Comitatus Act would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions.”
As the presidential campaign advanced in 2008, another video appeared online that for many crystallized their concerns over such a “corps.” It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama:
Rand officials said the study looked at the need for “a U.S. Stability Police Force, the major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed.”
The federally funded research was done specifically for the U.S. Army.
The study also said, “Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission.”
WND also has reported that U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”
His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”
Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”
“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specified.
It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.
Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civilian service … as the president may prescribe.”
WND also reported when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars.
Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people.
That bill included a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.”
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate [at the time] is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment