Being a former US Army officer it is my and every other officers sworn duty to uphold and protect the US Constitution — no exception!.
Tag Archives: Abuse of Power
Imperial Presidency – Presidential Finding Memos and Executive Orders Show Scope of Obama’s Dictatorial Fiats’…
Well he stated that he was going to fundamentally change the country and the only way you can do that is by appointments, executive orders and memorandums.
I was at the back door of the ED the day Hasan massacred people at Fort Hood
The progressives have made a pack with the devil himself, the Islamists’ (BTW that is all Muslims) such as CAIR in order to get their support for the remaking of America into a lessor status country with a small military and a weakened culture. The progressives have made similar deals with other other groups such as the LGBT movement to accumulate support for “change,” Obviously the LGBT and CAIR groups are not compatible! Since all all our enemies and competitors are for weakling America they move together for now. The problem with all social movements is that the leaders have no clue how to run a country and after they make the “change” others such as Stalin Hitler, Castor or Mao take over and millions die while the dictators and tyrants via for power. This power rearrangement has occurred in various forms every 80 to 90 years and its our turn now!
The Great Campus Rape Hoax…
The bottom line is and always has been , never believe anything a politician or activist tells you —- in face as this post shows its normally the exact opposite!
Too late, American journalists realize their mistake.
The Press and Dr. Faustus
by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online
In the old Dr. Faustus story, a young scholar bargains away his soul to the devil for promises of obtaining almost anything he wants.
The American media has done much the same thing with the Obama administration. In return for empowering a fellow liberal, the press gave up its traditional adversarial relationship with the president.
But after five years of basking in a shared progressive agenda, the tab for such ecstasy has come due, and now the media is lamenting that it has lost its soul.
At first, the loss of independence seemed like a minor sacrifice. In 2008, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews sounded almost titillated by an Obama speech, exclaiming, “My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.” Earlier, New York Timescolumnist David Brooks had fixated on Obama’s leg rather than his own: “I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president, and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
For worshiper and former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, Obama was divine: “Obama’s standing above the country, above the world, he’s sort of God.” TV pundit and presidential historian Michael Beschloss ranked the newly elected Barack Obama as “the smartest guy ever to become president.”
For a press that had exposed Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Monica Lewinsky affair, and had torn apart George W. Bush over everything from the Iraq War to Hurricane Katrina, this hero worship seemed obsessive. The late liberal reporter Michael Hastings summed up a typical private session between President Obama and the press during the 2012 campaign: “Everyone, myself included, swooned. Swooned! Head over heels. One or two might have even lost their minds. . . . We were all, on some level, deeply obsessed with Obama, crushing hard.”
Sometimes the media and Obama were one big happy family — literally. The siblings of the presidents of ABC News and CBS News are both higher-ups in the Obama administration. The White House press secretary’s wife is a correspondent for ABC’s Good Morning America.
When Obama’s chief political aide, David Axelrod, went to work for MSNBC, Obama jokingly called it “a nice change of pace, because MSNBC used to work for David Axelrod.” Nor was Obama shy about rubbing in his subjects’ hero worship: “My job is to be president; your job is to keep me humble. Frankly, I think I’m doing my job better.” In Africa recently, Obama advised his traveling press corps to “behave,” then compared them unfavorably with the more polite and compliant media of an increasingly authoritarian South Africa.
Four hundred reporters even formed their own off-the-record shared email chat group, JournoList, to strategize attacks against Obama’s political opponents. AttackWatch.com (paid for by Obama for America) read like some sort of secret-police operation, asking readers to report any criticism of Obama as it compiled “Attack Files” in blaring black and red headers.
When President Obama kept open Guantanamo Bay or expanded the Bush war on terror, he was described as “anguished” and “torn” as he broke his earlier promises. Bad news like unemployment spikes or flat GDP growth was customarily editorialized with adverbs like “unexpectedly” — as if Obama’s setbacks surely were aberrant and would quickly subside. In one of the 2012 presidential debates, the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, was so exasperated that Obama seemed to need help that she jumped in to challenge Mitt Romney.
Obama rightly assumed that when the Benghazi scandal surfaced during the 2012 campaign, the press would largely ignore it. Likewise, he knew that the politicization of the IRS would not warrant headline news. Ditto Fast and Furious and the NSA mess.
But then a Faustian thing happened. This year it was also revealed that the Obama administration had monitored the communications of Associated Press reporters on the suspicion that they were publishing leaks. For the first time, outrage arose: Liberal presidents were not, in Nixonian fashion, supposed to go after liberal reporters.
The Obama administration did not object to AP reporters’ leaking classified information per se. Indeed, it had leaked the most intimate details of the cyber war against Iran, the drone protocols, and the bin Laden raid to pet reporters like theNew York Times’s David Sanger and the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. The election-year “exclusive” revelations of both usually portrayed Obama as an underappreciated, muscular commander-in-chief.
The crime instead was that AP was freelancing and might publish leaks that were not always flattering. Since long ago the media had made a pact, it was natural that the Obama administration assumed it had a right to monitor what it had bought.
In one version of the tale, Dr. Faustus at least got 24 years of freebies before being hauled off to Hell. Our poor media did not even get five years of adulation before Obama called in their souls.
NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His The Savior Generals is just out from Bloomsbury Books.
Feinstein Fail: Two Thirds Of Americans Refuse To Rule Out Torture As An Interrogation Method
The people know the difference between a captured terrorist and a captured soldier! Politicians really don’t know much about anything except how to get your money!
Americans Find Some Tortures More Acceptable Than Others
” Most Americans think torture can be justified, but hardly anyone thinks “rectal feeding” is acceptable
This week saw the release of a long-awaited Senate report detailing the post-9/11 CIA detention and interrogation program with a focus on the agency’s the use of torture. According to the report, interrogation procedures used on some detainees that were much harsher and less effective than previously acknowledged. Critics, including former CIA interrogators and Bush administration officials, have called the report politically motivated and inaccurate.
When Americans are asked about suspected terrorists “who may know details about future attacks against the U.S.”, only 24% are prepared to say the use of torture is “never” justified. Nearly as many, 20%, say the use of torture is “always” justified, while the remainder say it’s either “sometimes” (28%) or only “rarely” (18%) justified – a total of…
View original post 37 more words
Mark Levin: Overwhelming Majority of Republicans Violated Their Oath of Office
I agree with Mark and as an army officer I also took that oath! And I still believe it is valid!
My Opinion of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
I severed in the United States Army as an officer for 4 years during the Vietnam Conflict where on patrol in 1967 I captured an NVA officer after a battle and was later wounded there in another action. During my training we underwent escape and evasion training and studied the rules of warfare that had been developed for prisoners of war. Which almost no aggressor forces (NVA, Cubans) followed. In principle there are two classes of prisoners uniformed and non uniformed. Uniformed are the official military members of any country and thereby governed by international laws. Uniformed military are to be treated by these developed standards which do not allow for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques EIT’s in my opinion but I do not consider these to be torture by the way!
There is however a different class of prisoners which are spy’s and terrorists. This class has never been a protected class and should not be included with regular uniformed military. Terrorists in particular are a particularity bad category and should not be protected from Enhanced Interrogation Techniques!
War is a dirty business and if you want a military to protect you than you must also give them the ability to kill the enemy where ever they find them. They do this nasty job for their family friends and country but if the political class turns on them as is now happening don’t expect them to fight for you as they have in the past.Don’t let cleaver attorneys redefine everything use common sense and make them use it as well! Terrorists have given up their right from Enhanced Interrogation Techniques don’t change that or a lot more of you will die in future attacks.
President Obama and the progressive Democratic are destroying the country that the founders developed. You have no idea how bad it can get if they complete this process. The ability to protect the citizens was one of those things and it included an armed citizenry. The American system was the best one ever developed as any serious study of political Philosophy will show.
If you change what we have which is what is being done now than you will be very very sorry after you realize what you allowed to happen. Political in general are not to be trusted and that was the point to the constitution that we have(had) limit their power! For tends to corrupt and the great the power the government has that more corrupt it becomes.
ALWAYS ERROR ON THE SIDE OF SMALLER GOVERNMENT
James Madison: How to Stop the Federal Government
Re-Post from The Tenth Amendment Blog
In response to federal overreach, most people tend to focus on three types of actions to stop them: elections, conventions, and lawsuits. While they all have their place in an overall strategy to defend the Constitution, none of them should be the first step forward. That is, if you follow the advice of the “Father of the Constitution.”
Here’s what James Madison had to say in Federalist #46. The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared:
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Let me translate. Madison said that when the federal government passes an unconstitutional measure there are powerful methods to oppose it – amongst the people and in the states. He also pointed out that those methods were available even for warrantable, that is constitutional, measures.
Madison told us of four things that should be done to resist federal powers, whether merely unpopular, or unconstitutional.
1. Disquietude of the people – Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure. That leads to the next step.
2. Repugnance and Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union – Noncompliance. The #1 dictionary of the time defined repugnance as “disobedient; not obsequious” (compliant). If you want to stop the federal government, you have to disobey them. Madison also suggested that people would perhaps directly refuse to cooperate with federal agents. This is an approach we preach here every day at the Tenth Amendment Center. James Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws.
3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State – Here Madison envisions governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action.
4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions – Madison keeps this open-ended, and in the years soon after, which I’ll cover shortly, we learn how both he and Thomas Jefferson applied this step.
Madison also told us that if several adjoining States would do the same it would be an effective tool to stop federal acts. To repeat, he said that doing this “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed recently and said that people need to stop enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. He also said that if you could get an entire state doing this, it would make federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”
What’s important to note here, are some glaring omissions. The powerful means that Madison told us would be used to oppose federal power successfully did NOT include federal lawsuits in federal courts. He also did NOT include “voting the bums out” as a strategy, either.
FIRST RESPONSE
Compare that with how people generally respond to what they consider unconstitutional or unpopular federal acts today.
The first thing I tend to hear from people who are opposed to a federal act is the “vote the bums out” mantra. We’ll fire congress, right?
Or some people tell us we have to sue and let the courts decide.
I’ve got some news for you. There’s nothing from the founders – anywhere – in which they tell us that our first response to extreme, repeated violations of the constitution and liberty is to vote the bums out, or sue the feds in federal court. Nothing.
LEGISLATIVE DEVICES
Thomas Jefferson followed up on this in 1798 with the same kind of advice. That year, the Adams administration passed a wildly unconstitutional attack on the freedom of speech with the Alien and Sedition Acts. In response, while sitting as vice-president, Jefferson secretly drafted the Kentucky Resolutions, and here’s a little of what he wrote:
“The several states composing the united states of america are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.”
“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy”
“that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”
Madison was consistent in his views on this. In 1798, he also drafted and help pass something known as the Virginia Resolutions, a state-level “legislative device” in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here’s a key part:
in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Like Madison advised in Federalist #46, both he and Thomas Jefferson advised a state-level response to dangerous federal acts. In 1798, neither of them even mentioned voting or lawsuits.
Jefferson told us that a “nullification is the rightful remedy.” And Madison told us that states are “duty-bound to interpose.”
When Daniel Webster called on these same principles in response to military conscription plans during the war of 1812, he said:
“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist; and their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights and the liberties of their people”
Become a member and support the TAC!
Here’s the bottom line. You are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 years for some new politicians to get in office and give your permission to be free. You are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 or 6 years for some federal court to tell you, “ok, you be free now.”
You are supposed to stand up resist, refuse to comply and nullify unconstitutional federal acts – as soon as they happen.
All the money and time you throw at firing congress or winning in federal court will never, ever work – unless you start resisting right here in your state. And, that resistance needs to be your first response, not your last.
Gun Ownership as the Disease: Psychopolitics as the Cure
For Truth’s Sake!
Truth…Whether the Left Likes It or Not
At the heart of any psychopolitical operation is the need to portray the nation, (or population) under attack, as being insane. The society must come to view itself as being “sick” in order to accept the tenets of communism as a method of mental healing. We have witnessed a relentless assault on conservatism and constitutionalists in this nation, because we are the ones that need to be thoroughly destroyed and discredited, in order for Obama’s unconstitutional agenda to move forward. You could argue that the real target when employing these tactics, are future generations, as a thorough trashing of America and our history seems to be the main topic in our public schools. Remember, Marxist’s believe that if you get children early enough, you can wield influence over them for the rest of their lives. In this installment in my series on psychopolitics, I intend to connect this strategy not only to discrediting conservatism, but destroying the second amendment as well.
The realm of defamation and degradation, to the psychopolitician, is man himself. By attacking the character and morals of man himself, and by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. “Brainwashing- A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.”
In my article entitled “The culture changing PopTart,” I addressed the alarming rate which kids were being suspended from school for doing anything that might suggest, the slightest interest in firearms. The main point was the story about Josh Welch, who was suspended for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun. In this case, an interest in guns wasn’t even an issue, young Josh had later admitted he was trying to make a mountain. The problem was a hypersensitive, liberal teacher who was dutifully carrying out the left’s anti gun agenda by attempting to scare the rest of the kids half to death. What they are attempting to do is shame our children into compliance with their socialist world view. By sinking the image of guns as being “bad” at such a young age, the left is virtually ensuring a generation of automatons who will eagerly surrender their guns, if not their parents’ guns as well. They do this by portraying the gun owner as insane, and in need of mental treatment; and by allowing a degraded, shameful feeling to develop in the child.
As most are aware, the still Democrat controlled senate just confirmed a second amendment advocates worse nightmare, to the office of surgeon general. Vivek Murthy is a rabid anti second amendment proponent, who believes he is going to connect gun ownership to disease in need of treatment. Gun ownership is America’s sickness, and by labeling it a public health menace, he will have effectively cemented the process of brainwashing our future generations into accepting gun control. The process starts very early in elementary education (as earlier mentioned) and is carried on in colleges and universities as our children are being taught to be “agents of social change.” Murthy will spend billions funding bogus studies in an attempt to prove his hypothesis, and because he is the Surgeon General, they will be studied by all in the field of medicine. Anyone who goes against the narrative will feel the wrath, and the majority working in the fields of medicine will eagerly carry the narrative for promotions.
The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it, who rebels in any way, shape or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician. “Brainwashing- A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.”
The publishing of bogus academic papers is a very effective method of indoctrination. Take the article “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” by John T. Jost, Jack Glazer, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway. The authors of this academic paper attempt to “scientifically” prove that political conservatives are, for a lack of better words, mentally ill. They define the term conservative on their terms by describing political conservatives as being afraid of change, rigid and accepting of social inequalities that perpetuate our own “perceived superiority.” For Truths Sake, could this sound any more familiar? This is all opinion on the part of researchers that are biased to begin with. Nowhere in this article is there any mention of the FACT that societies that have attempted to force total egalitarianism often succumb to committing mass genocide because they believed people that didn’t go along with the agenda, were somehow defective and insane. I guess we have come full circle on that one, haven’t we? Also, the researchers are basing their work on the basis in which they view the world; social science and Darwinism. No where is there any mention of a conservatives belief about the capabilities of all men, the article just presumes their worldview is the truth.
With all of this being said, the desired definition of political conservatism has certainly taken a hold through the use of papers like this one. Just as the use of opinions and fabricated data was used to cement these false perceptions, so it will be with the bogus, biased research that Vivek Murthy intends to inundate the medical world with.
Better brace your self America, you’re about to be labeled mentally ill for owning a gun. Don’t be surprised if it ends up a diagnosis in the new Diagnostic Staticians Manual.
Centinel2012 