Tag Archives: Executive Order

Notice — Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Libya

By The White House

NOTICE

– – – – – – –

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO LIBYA

On February 25, 2011, by Executive Order 13566, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates who took extreme measures against the people of Libya, including by using weapons of war, mercenaries, and wanton violence against unarmed civilians. In addition, there was a serious risk that Libyan state assets would be misappropriated by Qadhafi, members of his government, members of his family, or his close associates if those assets were not protected. The foregoing circumstances, the prolonged attacks, and the increased numbers of Libyans seeking refuge in other countries caused a deterioration in the security of Libya and posed a serious risk to its stability.

We are in the process of winding down the sanctions in response to developments in Libya, including the fall of Qadhafi and his government and the establishment of a democratically elected government. We are working closely with the new Libyan government and with the international community to effectively and appropriately ease restrictions on sanctioned entities, including by taking action consistent with the U.N. Security Council's decision to lift sanctions against the Central Bank of Libya and two other entities on December 16, 2011. The situation in Libya, however, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and we need to protect against this threat and the diversion of assets or other abuse by certain members of Qadhafi's family and other former regime officials. Therefore, the national emergency declared on February 25, 2011, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 25, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House Press Office

Veterans Association Slams Obama’s Drone Policy

By Breaking News

Obama Feeds America SC Veterans Association Slams Obamas Drone Policy
National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition 
Position Paper on Drones targeting American citizens:
Ever since “UBL died” and “Obama lied”, this administration has had a record of smoke and mirrors unrivaled in the annals of American political history. The latest is the “wise” and “legal” and “ethical” drone strikes on Americans and others associated with Al Qaeda and its “associates.”
The Coalition has examined the sixteen page document “leaked” to NBC News justifying these drone strikes and finds several problems with this “document.” First, it found justification for the much maligned operation(s) into Cambodia during the Vietnam era. Second, it found justification for enhanced interrogation, also much maligned. Third, but not finally, it found justification for the much maligned operation into Iraq. All justifications made by the very same political forces that maligned these operations in their different time frames.
To a degree, it also found justification for drone strikes against Al Qaeda and its allies. They were justifications for normal counterinsurgency operations using these advanced weapons. However, missing was justification for going outside Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations as a national policy, outside the normal bounds of the rules of land warfare. The so-called justifications showed that the Obama Administration is either contemplating or justifying a national policy of assassination against the terrorist network that the administration has belatedly acknowledged we are at war with.
Previously, most notably in Vietnam through the Phoenix Program, the legally accepted way to operate against a “terrorist” organization was to identify first the positions that were to be “targeted” (regardless of who held those positions) and previously made illegal by whatever appropriate means. Once the prior illegality had been established and decision made to dismantle the organization, priorities were set.
First would be recruit in place. Second would be to cause the target to defect to the legitimate side. Third would be to run an operation to capture the target. Fourth would be to run an operation; and due to circumstances of the operation, the target is killed. The other priorities will not be discussed because of the nature of the new threat and the probability they have no relevance today.
The document “leaked” shows none of these backgrounds and legalities. The bulk of the document deals with details not relevant to operations against American citizens in a terrorist organization. It lacks in details making these operations “legal” under the rules of land warfare. It stretches the outer boundaries of the rules of land warfare, almost to extinction. For example, “National Self Defense” (page 15) appears to be a huge stretch, if not an outright violation of Executive Order 12333.
The rules on the “feasibility of capture” bear little relevance to what is known about operations, like the assassination of Usama Bin Laden and the drone assassination of Anwar al Awlaki. Bin Laden was unarmed and unresisting when shot and killed. This was a violation of “Further, under this framework, the United States would also be required to accept a surrender if it were feasible to do so…” (page 9). …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Obama Building A Personal Army At The Department Of Homeland Security

By Doug Book

General Obama Forward Stand Down SC Obama building a personal army at the Department of Homeland Security

In July of 2008, presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama stated that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

It was 4 months before the election; yet no one in the “mainstream” media seemed interested in asking a presidential candidate about his promise to create a “civilian security force” with a $440 billion annual budget! What, exactly, would it do? Who would be in charge? Where would a force the size of the U.S. Military be housed? Would its members—like their military counterparts—be armed? How much authority would such a force exercise over the American people? From whom would it be derived? In his speech, Mr. Obama made it sound as though most of the members would be volunteers. If so, why would a near-half trillion dollar budget be necessary?

In the almost 5 years since Obama’s frightening pledge to put a powerful, unidentified force in charge of “national security,” the American public has discovered that:

  • though Obama has never again repeated the terms “civilian national security force,” it is obvious that the Department of Homeland Security is filling that role in the Obama Regime.
  • DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have purchased more than 450 million rounds of .40 cal, hollow point ammunition. Hollow points are expensive and wholly unnecessary for range use. It seems members of the DHS are to be armed—well armed. At the same time, Mr. Obama is working to see to it that the American people are NOT.
  • the immigration services and enforcement budgets at DHS were nearly $20 billion in 2010. Yet the Mexican-U.S. border was guarded by a “virtual fence” which leaked illegal aliens like a sieve. Some 4-5.5 million foreigners have overstayed their Visa’s in the US, yet just 8,100 arrests have been made by the DHS!

Then, in October of 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order creating the “White House Homeland Security Partnership Council,”  its ostensible purpose to “…advance the federal government’s use of local partnerships to address homeland-security challenges.” But the DHS was ALREADY working with local governments across the nation. Why would Obama intercede in this way?

Because “he [wanted] to be able to dictate who gets to participate in these local partnerships – and they don’t have to be local law enforcement or local government officials to do so. These partnerships will be with ‘the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations and community-based organizations.’  All of whom will be handpicked by Obama and those federal bureaucrats he appoints.”

The National Defense Authorization Act empowers Obama ON HIS OWN to determine who represents a threat to the United States and to have that individual detained and imprisoned. And the Executive Order he signed allows the president to select like-thinking “deputies” nationwide, authorized to act on Obama’s behalf. These men will have little or no concern …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Message — National Emergency with respect to Côte d’Ivoire

By The White House

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency, unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13396 of February 7, 2006, with respect to the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire is to continue in effect beyond February 7, 2013.

The situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire, which has been addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1572 of November 15, 2004, and subsequent resolutions, has resulted in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against international peacekeeping forces. Since the inauguration of President Alassane Ouattara in May 2011, the Government of Côte d'Ivoire has made progress in advancing democratic freedoms and economic development. While the Government of Côte d'Ivoire and its people continue to make progress towards peace and prosperity, the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency and related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House Press Office

Notice — National Emergency with respect to Côte d’Ivoire

By The White House

NOTICE

– – – – – – –

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT

TO THE SITUATION IN OR IN RELATION TO CÔTE D'IVOIRE

On February 7, 2006, by Executive Order 13396, the President declared a national emergency, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire and ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire. The situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire, which has been addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1572 of November 15, 2004, and subsequent resolutions, has resulted in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against international peacekeeping forces.

Since the inauguration of President Alassane Ouattara in May 2011, the Government of Côte d'Ivoire has made progress in advancing democratic freedoms and economic development. While the Government of Côte d'Ivoire and its people continue to make progress towards peace and prosperity, the situation in or in relation to Côte d'Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on February 7, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond February 7, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13396.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House Press Office

Presidential Memorandum — Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally

By The White House

January 30, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally
Promoting gender equality and advancing the status of all women and girls around the world remains one of the greatest unmet challenges of our time, and one that is vital to achieving our overall foreign policy objectives. Ensuring that women and girls, including those most marginalized, are able to participate fully in public life, are free from violence, and have equal access to education, economic opportunity, and health care increases broader economic prosperity, as well as political stability and security.
During my Administration, the United States has made promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls a central element of our foreign policy, including by leading through example at home. Executive Order 13506 of March 11, 2009, established the White House Council on Women and Girls to coordinate Federal policy on issues, both domestic and international, that particularly impact the lives of women and girls. This commitment to promoting gender equality is also reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States, the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, and the 2010 U.S. Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.
To elevate and integrate this strategic focus on the promotion of gender equality and the advancement of women and girls around the world, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have issued policy and operational guidance. For example, in March 2012, the Secretary of State issued Policy Guidance on Promoting Gender Equality to Achieve our National Security and Foreign Policy Objectives, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator released Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. The Millennium Challenge Corporation issued Gender Integration Guidelines in March 2011 to ensure its existing gender policy is fully realized. My Administration has also developed a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, created pursuant to Executive Order 13595 of December 19, 2011, to strengthen conflict resolution and peace processes through the inclusion of women, and a Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally, implemented pursuant to Executive Order 13623 of August 10, 2012, to combat gender-based violence around the world. Improving interagency coordination and information sharing, and strengthening agency capacity and accountability will help ensure the effective implementation of these and other Government efforts to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls globally.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls worldwide, I hereby direct the following:
Section 1. Strengthening Capacity and Coordination to Promote Gender Equality and Advance the Status of Women and Girls Internationally. (a) Enhancing U.S. global leadership on gender equality requires dedicated resources, personnel with appropriate expertise in advancing the status of women and girls worldwide, and commitment from senior leadership, as exemplified by the critical and historic role played by the Office of Global Women's Issues at the Department of State. To assure maximum coordination of efforts to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls, the Secretary of State (Secretary) shall designate a coordinator (Coordinator), who will normally also be appointed by the President as an Ambassador at Large (Ambassador at Large) subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The Ambassador at Large, who shall report directly to the Secretary of State, shall lead the Office of Global Women's Issues at the Department of State and provide advice and assistance on issues related to promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls internationally.
(b) The Ambassador at Large shall, to the extent the Secretary may direct and consistent with applicable law, provide guidance and coordination with respect to global policies and programs for women and girls, and shall lead efforts to promote an international focus on gender equality more broadly, including through diplomatic initiatives with other countries and partnerships and enhanced coordination with international and nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. To this end, the Ambassador at Large shall also, to the extent the Secretary may direct, assist in:
(i) implementing existing and developing new policies, strategies, and action plans for the promotion of gender equality and advancement of the status of women and girls internationally, and coordinating such actions with USAID and other agencies carrying out related international activities, as appropriate; and
(ii) coordinating such initiatives with other countries and international organizations, as well as with nongovernmental organizations.
(c) Recognizing the vital link between diplomacy and development, and the importance of gender equality as both a goal in itself and as a vital means to achieving the broader aims of U.S. development assistance, the Senior Coordinator for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment at USAID shall provide guidance to the USAID Administrator in identifying, developing, and advancing key priorities for U.S. development assistance, coordinating, as appropriate, with other agencies.
(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (or designee), in close collaboration with the Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls (or designee) and the Ambassador at Large (or designee), shall chair an interagency working group to develop and coordinate Government-wide implementation of policies to promote gender equality and advance the status of women and girls internationally. The Working Group shall consist of senior representatives from the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Homeland Security; the Intelligence Community, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; the United States Agency for International Development; the Millennium Challenge Corporation; the Peace Corps; the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; the Office of the United States Trade Representative; the Office of Management and Budget; the Office of the Vice President; the National Economic Council; and such other agencies and offices as the President may designate.
Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law or Executive Order to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Upon designation as such by the Secretary, the Coordinator shall exercise the functions of the Ambassador at Large set forth in this memorandum.
(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(e) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA

Source: White House Press Office

Obama Redefines America’s Founding Principles

By Richard Larsen

Obama Forward SC 690x1024 Obama Redefines Americas Founding Principles

Historically, Presidential Inaugural Addresses have sought to inspire and unite the nation and provide directional leadership for the next presidential term. Perhaps to some, Monday’s speech did that. But to adherents of American exceptionalism, it was disconcerting. The president’s speech was laced with references to our founding principles; but their meanings were twisted, misrepresented, and stripped of their historical and definitional significance.

God was mentioned seven times in the address, which may exceed the number of times the Almighty has been invoked by Obama over the past four years, which made their invocation seem superficial. The Constitution was mentioned once, at the very beginning, citing his second term as evidence of its “enduring strength” (in spite of the fact that he has stretched and distorted that document’s limitations on the executive branch beyond recognition of the founding fathers so dramatically during his first term.)

Even the Declaration of Independence was cited along with those eternal classical-liberal ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that led to the severance of our relationship with Great Britain and the perceived tyranny of King George. It was no surprise that he was reticent regarding the breadth and scope of our current federal government, which arguably wields immensely more tyranny over the American people than the British crown held over colonial America.

Even free market economics were mentioned, although it was in the context that the omnipotent and omniscient federal government must constrain and control it.

Clearly, through artistry and manipulation, precept-by-precept, the principles upon which the American republic was established were being redefined. Those tenets, which are distinctly and singularly American, which once were the pillars that the nation stood upon, were going through a historical revision right before our eyes. They were being reframed, redefined, and reshaped to fit a new progressive lexicon of American patriotic buzzwords that vitiate their original meanings.

The Constitution seems to have relevance since it returned him to power for another four years. But in terms of governance, it seems that to him, it has lost its applicability to 21st century American politics since he can issue Executive and Administrative Orders that circumvent the very document he moments earlier swore he would uphold and defend.

God has no relevance in the godless, morally relativistic, and warped values of the ideology that seeks to make omnipotent government the central component in every American life, replacing an omnipotent deity. As the president’s campaign website so proudly portrays with its “Life of Julia”, the government is to be there at every turn and juncture in the life of the average American: governing, regulating, “helping,” and “supporting.”

And perhaps most invidious of all, Obama presented a perverted sense of “liberty.” No spurious redefinition of liberty could be more antithetical to the founder’s intent than “being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.”

In any language and any culture, liberty is synonymous with freedom. Not just a freedom “to,” as in “to do something,” but also a freedom “from,” as in freedom from control, repression, and tyranny. Each time liberty or freedom were mentioned, the words rang increasingly hollow and meaningless. For freedom to, and freedom from, have an inverse relationship to government growth, government power, and government control, which have dramatically increased over the past four years.

With each incremental Executive Order or legislative Act that broadens and expands central governmental authority, and with every dollar taken out of the pockets of Americans to fund the insatiable spending appetite of government, individual liberty and freedom are disproportionately diminished. As government grows, individual liberty decreases. No wonder, then, that he would frame the concept of individual freedom in the context of “collective action.” The progressive statist agenda is always based on collectivism, not individuality.

It’s difficult to separate the causation, or at least correlation, of the massive expansion of governmental power, and the alarming growth of government debt of the past four years, from the perceived elusiveness of the American Dream. Four years ago, over 52% of Americans still believed the “American Dream” was attainable. That has now dropped to less than 40%, according to pollsters at Zogby.

And regrettably, the perception seems accurate. Between legislative Act, presidential declarations, and bureaucratic regulatory expansion, Investor’s Business Daily now calculates that the government has direct or indirect control of more than 60% of the entire U.S. economy. Energy production, oil production and distribution, banking and finance, manufacturing, logging, mining, health care, insurance, automobile manufacturing, and more are all now controlled by the central government. A strict political classification of such an economy is clearly fascistic, where government controls, not necessarily owns, the means of production. Individual and collective freedoms are sacrificed when government wields so much power over the entire economy.

Clearly typifying the moral relativism of our dysfunctional culture, the phrase “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle” perverts the very meaning of principle. After all, a principle is  “a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” As such, a principle is definitionally absolute. When they are no longer absolute, they are no longer principles; they’re simply good ideas. Such facile application of relativism to fundamental tenets like individual freedom and liberty diminishes the principled foundation of our republic.

The implications for the next four years are indeed ominous if this Inaugural Address represents the ideologically tortured state of our founding principles. With fundamental precepts marginalized through redefinition, token relevance accorded the Constitution, and free markets only viable with governmental control of the means of production, we are well on our way to the president’s desired “fundamental transformation of America.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: Dave Merrick

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Presidential Memorandum — Rulemaking Concerning the Standards for Designating Positions in the Competitive Service as National Security Sensitive and Related Matters

By The White House

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT: Rulemaking Concerning the Standards for Designating Positions in the Competitive Service as National Security Sensitive and Related Matters

The Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall jointly propose the amended regulations contained in the Office of Personnel Management's notice of proposed rulemaking in 75 Fed. Reg. 77783 (December 14, 2010), with such modifications as are necessary to permit their joint publication, without prejudice to the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under any Executive Order, and to the extent permitted by law.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: White House Press Office

Emotion Vs. Common Sense On Gun Control

By Richard Larsen

guns SC Emotion vs. Common Sense on Gun Control

To Americans who can still think, this past week’s sensationalized gun-control presentation at the White House was all show, with little substance. The intended effect was to have us believe that the president was doing something about gun violence; but nearly all of his 23 recommendations are aimed at law-abiding citizens, rather than criminals.

You’d think that President Obama was from California, as masterfully as he stages events, complete with props, isolated talking-points, and emotional image manipulation. Perhaps it’s simply a “Chicago Way” skill acquired from “never letting a crisis go to waste.” The net result was an emotionalized response to a legitimate concern, which should’ve been approached with common sense rather than emotionalism. This administration is perhaps the most adept ever at using fear and emotion to further its ideological agenda.

The props used in the presentation were four children who wrote to the president about gun control and families affected by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary last month. Such blatant emotionalized exploitation of children for a political objective should be an affront to any sentient person. I couldn’t help but think of a picture I saw the next day of two adorable girls holding a sign that said, “Mr. President, we wrote to you about passing all of your debt to us. When do we get to be on TV?” Sorry, girls. That’s not an issue the president cares about; otherwise, you could be similarly exploited, emotively, as child-props.

The props, staging, and presentation created the false image that if we care about those children, we must stand with the president in challenging constitutional rights and our own ability to defend ourselves. It’s a false dichotomy; for the basis of his Executive Orders is emotional and the recommendations of no perceivable empirical value in protecting those children.

Proving that the 23 executive orders were all show and little substance, or mostly emotion and little common sense, consider the fact that had all of the president’s Executive Orders and Administrative Orders been in effect before last month, Adam Lanza would still have been able to perpetrate his crime in Newtown, Connecticut. As it is, he reportedly broke 20 laws that day. It is ludicrous to presume that a few more laws, regulations, or penalties aimed primarily at law-abiding citizens would have prevented him from perpetrating his heinous act. What those orders will do is impede non-threatening citizens from procuring their own means of protection. The criminals will continue to break laws and regulations to get and do what they want.

At least Obama didn’t issue an Executive Order to ban certain types of weapons, or to enact what is undoubtedly his ultimate goal: the elimination of the Second Amendment altogether and the implementation of a complete gun ban. Had he done so, the consequences could well have turned sour for him with impeachment proceedings initiated in the House, and for the nation, as law-abiding gun owners across the country prepared to defend their rights against the tyranny of an administration that holds the Constitution, and certain inalienable rights, in contempt.

When we approach the issue logically versus emotionally, empirical data must be relied upon, rather than the highly emotional tugs at our heartstrings. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gunlocks. From their objective analysis, they “found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as ‘gun control.’”

If we want to be serious about gun violence, first, abolish gun free zones, which blatantly advertise themselves as uncontested areas to perpetrate mass violence. They allow loonies like Lanza to be foxes in a hen house. Armed citizens, like the one in an Oregon mall last month, are the best defense against the Lanzas of the world.

Second, address the gang violence issue in America. According to the Center for Disease Control, 70% of all gun violence occurs in the 50 largest cities (some of which have outright gun bans in place); and 73% of those crimes are committed by teenagers in gangs. Address the societal breakdown in the inner cities that fosters the gang culture, and armed violence drops significantly.

Third, focus much more effort on background checks, including the abolition of the barrier that prevents mental health professionals from sharing patient information with law enforcement on individuals who pose a risk to society.

Fourth, rather than focusing on guns as an ideological agenda, start looking at all violent crimes. According to the FBI, there are 50% more non-firearm homicides each year than firearm homicides, 16,799 to 11,493. And the number one weapon used in all violent crimes is the baseball bat. Neither the bat nor the gun is the problem. The problems are cultural and societal.

And the media must quit playing into the quest for celebrity status by people like Lanza and start praising people like Nick Meli, who stopped the Oregon mall shooting rampage last month.

To solve the complex problems vexing the nation, we need much less emotionalized staging in reaction to crises and much more common sense. Children used as props to advance an ideological agenda may provide a “feel good” moment for politicians, and even some citizens; but they solve no problems.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: Gregory Wild-Smith (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

FEMA And The National Guard–working For Or Against The American Public?

By George Spelvin

FEMA truck 1024x704 FEMA and the National Guard–working for or against the American public?

A nationwide flu outbreak could be a sufficient excuse to call up the National Guard Rapid Response Parallel support module to take control of a “national emergency” with possible declaration of martial law protocols. According to a North Carolina police lieutenant, in some three to six months declarations of martial law could be made throughout the nation. In a two part radio broadcast aired by a Virginia pastor, Lieutenant McCoy has attracted the attention of more than 20,000 listeners. “We’re in huge trouble,” he says as he calls up memories of white, granite gravestones all over Europe; gravestones marking the final resting place of veterans who died “for us” during World War II.

Tragically, many of our veterans are now referred to as potential “domestic terrorists” by President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security. Men who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan have been declared “risks” should they choose to purchase a firearm for private use. A devout Christian, the 31 year lawman tells listeners, “I cry. . .when guns are gone, you won’t be able to worship the Creator. . .gone. . . Freedoms gone.”

When Katrina made its way through New Orleans leaving portions of the city in ruins, George Bush praised FEMA director Michael Brown, saying “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” It was an incredible statement given the display of incompetence not only by FEMA, but by federal agencies throughout the bureaucracy. Residents of New York City can attest to the fact that things have not improved given that providing water to victims of Sandy was too complicated a task for federal relief agencies DAYS after the hurricane had passed through the area.

Perhaps it’s time to ask the true purpose of FEMA and other federal agencies. When the necessity arises, National Guard Units under martial law paradigms will be rolled out for “control of widespread domestic unrest.” A 2009 report discusses something called a Stability Police Force resembling a hybrid military/ law enforcement entity created “under the guise of controlling domestic riots.” Use of National Guard units became familiar to residents of New Orleans during the Katrina episode, so citizens may initially not consider it unusual to see guard members serving along with FEMA in these 10 regions.

Executive Orders, “…have been on the books for a half century now, empowering the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take control of everything from public and private communications, energy and transportation to housing and more.” (5) And since 9/11, the president has been given nearly limitless power, permitting officers of the Executive branch to ignore completely the constitutional rights of the American people.

In March of 2012, Barack Obama created Executive Order number 13603, entitled National Defense Resources Preparedness. “In this Executive Order, Obama essentially gave himself the authority to declare Martial Law in times of war or peace.” War OR Peace! No longer will the federal government need the excuse of a disaster to impose its full will and authority on the American public!

Lieutenant McCoy was right when he observed that “we’re in huge trouble!” The question is, will We the People have the courage to reclaim our constitutional rights?

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

A Liberal History Of Union Thuggery And Civil Rights Perversion

By Shawn Paul

Democrat SC A Liberal History of Union Thuggery and Civil Rights Perversion

In the unfolding of recent events, well-informed citizens have likely noticed the hypocrisy that has shown through the actions and inactions of many affiliated with trade unions and the modern civil rights movement.

Most recently, this hypocrisy related to union practices could be seen in last month’s union protest of then-pending right-to-work legislation in Lansing at the Michigan State Capitol.

Just as is almost exclusively true with all public union activity, many of the protestors gathered in this assembly spewed insults and foul language and carried out violence against not only their outspoken detractors, but even against reserved individuals who they perceived might be in disagreement with their cause.

Two examples gaining much exposure involved Steven Crowder and Clint Tarver.

Steven Crowder, Fox News contributor, comedian, and political activist, is known for his irreverent and politically incorrect humor, as well as his outspoken conservative stances on practically every major current issue. That said, based on video captured at the event featuring his encounter with union protestors, he seemed to be on his best behavior. At least one of the union protestors, though, launched a profanity-ridden verbal attack on Crowder, only before launching a physical one on him that left Crowder with significant injuries.

Clint Tarver, on the other hand, was on the sidelines of the event, simply doing his job when he became a victim of the violence. Tarver had been hired by the pro-right-to-work group Americans for Prosperity to serve hotdogs in a tent set up for the organization at this event. Racial slurs were spouted at Tarver, who happens to be a black man, before his vending equipment and other property was overturned, trampled on, and destroyed. As he scrambled to try to salvage what he could of his property, a friend reportedly told him “You gotta get out of here.” It seems obvious that as the stirred-up protestors were looking for their next victim, he must have made for an easy target in that he was perceived to be associated with AFP. The fact that he was also a black man seems to have only fueled the fire of the attack, in that popular sentiment now tells us that black Americans who stand up for, or associate themselves with, conservative causes are somehow disloyal to their race (or, to quote a recent statement from a certain sports commentator, they are “not down with the cause.”) The objectives of this “cause” seem to become more painfully clear every day.

It is very telling that in just these two examples, so much typical liberal hypocrisy comes to light. The same liberal crowd that aligns themselves with union interests is also typically the one that presents themselves as the exclusive champions of free speech and assembly and of the modern civil rights movement. If that’s true, the attacks on these two men and others serve as another of many poor examples in showing their loyalty to these interests; and they seem to tell an entirely different story. The message of this mob of union thugs (and of most other liberals) seems to be: “We support your right to free speech and assembly as long as you agree with us and fall into the roles and stereotypes we’ve assigned to you.”

President Obama and various union officials and supporters have continually maintained that unions remain vital to the survival of certain industries, as well as regional, state, and national economies. On their watch and under their control, though, businesses, entire industries, and state economies have increasingly failed. The outcome has been no different for the auto industry in Detroit and for the state of Michigan, the birthplace of the UAW and the nation’s organized labor movement, under union control. As the unions have gained power and saturated the local market, industry has increasingly taken a downturn.

With this knowledge, union proponents continue to hide their selfish and power-hungry intentions behind the lies of supposed intentions for the good of the public and business majority. The fallout that follows hurts the economy and industry (at all levels), as well as the public at large and even union members themselves.

Well, it seems that the working public and state legislatures in Wisconsin, Indiana, and now Michigan are forming a consensus that right-to-work states allow for greater growth and opportunity and that union membership and dues are no longer necessary. Closed shops now seem to account for little meaningful workplace protection but only offer unequal promotion, waste, a decline in product and service quality, and a lack of marketplace competition as a return on their investment.

As it turned out, of course, in spite of all the threats and violence of these union thugs, Michigan became the nation’s 24th right-to-work state.

If these events alone are not enough to show the hypocrisy and destruction that is union control, the modern civil rights movement, and liberalism in general, then we need only to look into their history in this country.

While it’s certainly true that many involved in the efforts and in receiving the rewards of these causes have remained honest and sincere, the core of their power structure has historically been dishonest and self-serving; and so it also remains today.

As for unions, American unions can be traced back as far as 1786, when Philadelphian printers conducted the first recorded labor strike for higher wages. But the tradition of 20th century unionism was largely the work of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and its leader, Samuel Gompers.

This movement, beginning in 1881, enjoyed a small but growing membership throughout the 1880’s and 1890’s. Gompers and his federation enjoyed their greatest influence, though, during WWI, when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Gompers to the Council of National Defense, a position he used as leverage in convincing the president to enable government support for trade unions and collective bargaining in WARTIME! As this may sound familiar and similar to the current relationship between our government and unions, it also shows that unethical union practices are nothing new.

In fact, on AFL-CIO’s own official website, it is admitted that Samuel Gompers “…socialized with a group of émigré socialists and labor reformers whom he would always credit for his commitment to trade unionism as the essential vehicle for bringing about social reform.”

Like me, do you remember a time when “socialism” and “socialists” were seen as dirty words that were best kept unspoken, held at bay, or at least kept in secret? They now seem to be gaining acceptance and viewed, by some, as words to associate with and to be proud of. Even so, socialism and communism have always lain at the root of many societal problems that have been unnecessarily kept alive until the modern day.

Even to my own dismay in some respects, much of the history of the civil rights movement has evolved from less-than-honorable legacies. This is not in reference to the brave souls who defied an evil system, at the risk of their own lives, to rid society of very real and dangerous racism (they are to be commended and honored), but to those who used this cause, like many others, for personal and political gain, generally to the detriment of those they claimed to protect and defend.

The American civil rights movement of the 20th century is often traced back to 1948 when President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which states: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The next notable advance usually cited in this movement occurred on July 2, 1964, when Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only after facing alienation from a Republican Congress that penned and passed the bill.

The same Congress also passed the Voting Rights Act the next year.

Johnson then issued Executive Order 11246, which first enacted “affirmative action” in the workplace. This was apparently a presidential overreach intended to secure a personal, politically expedient stance for the civil rights movement. In actuality, it was and remains a very discriminatory policy that placed race above qualifications for prospective employees.

The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the president’s executive order were all met with strong opposition and opposing votes from the president’s own Democrat party.

Many have seen through what they believe to have been obviously dishonest intentions on the part of President Johnson, based more upon personal, political, and party-line gain of power and money than upon civil rights or equality. Many more seem to speculate that this historical reality seems plausible.

To that effect, after weathering strong racist and segregationist resistance from fellow Democrats to his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is quoted in John Kessler’s Inside the White House as saying, “I’ll have those n*gg*rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years!” That’s not the sort of language we usually look for in a modern champion for civil rights!

In the person and presidency of Barack Obama, American liberals and Sharia law proponents find an unprecedented 21st century dream connection of possibilities. What a veiled imposter, thinly as it may be applied, this president has turned out to be.

We would all do well to prepare ourselves for the damage that such an American leader and commander-in-chief might inflict upon his own nation and the world.

In spite of this overly cautious era of political correctness, we ought to consider that this man, in some measure, shares similar appearance and DNA with those brave and peaceful civil freedom advocates of the 1960’s, but with demonstrated racially divisive, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamic allegiances that could not be further from the noble cause so bravely fought by those devoted men and women of history.

Ironically, in the face of this reality, the sitting president now invokes the name of the most honored leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., every time it is politically expedient to do so (and will evoke his memory, as he reportedly intends to use the “traveling Bible” of King in the inauguration ceremony to usher in his second term.)

It should be obvious to even newcomer students of American history that there is a pattern of government interference into public life that is always followed by failure and destruction. Although our government is always seeking new avenues for corruption (i.e. green energy incentives) that always end in failure, their fraudulent use of unionism and the civil rights movement has become their traditional institution of deception. Gun control now stands to be their next institution, capitalizing upon tragedies that could not be thwarted by the addition of yet another law to the already saturated legal system. As informed and concerned Americans, we should not only be aware of the tricks and trade of the left. But we should also be vigilantly involved in the political processes of our communities, states, and country; in regular communication with our representatives (because corruption knows no bounds); and always relying on the Creator and ultimate founder of America, our Almighty God.

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Notice — Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process

By The White House

NOTICE

– – – – – – –

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO
TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN TO DISRUPT THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

On January 23, 1995, by Executive Order 12947, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process. On August 20, 1998, by Executive Order 13099, the President modified the Annex to Executive Order 12947 to identify four additional persons who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process. On February 16, 2005, by Executive Order 13372, the President clarified the steps taken in Executive Order 12947.

Because these terrorist activities continue to threaten the Middle East peace process and to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on January 23, 1995, and the measures adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond January 23, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: White House Press Office

Why Don’t Dems Shove Gun Control Down America’s Throat–ObamaCare Style?

By Doug Book

Obama Feeds America SC Why don’t Dems shove gun control down America’s throat–ObamaCare style?

Since the December 14th murder of 27 people prevented by law from defending themselves, the American left has worked overtime to intimidate, embarrass, and harass 2nd Amendment supporters into relinquishing their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Gun and accessory bans, sales by private citizens outlawed, imminent threats of confiscation, millions in new taxes and fees, and countless law abiding citizens menaced with being summarily pronounced felons—all of these threats have been brought to bear on the American public by self-righteous hypocrites.

Yet a full month has gone by since the grisly Sandy Hook killings; and the far left has done nothing but bluster and provoke. Why is that?

It wasn’t long ago an arrogant, elitist congresswoman told Americans that ObamaCare had to become the law of the land for the public to find out what was in it! Democrats either avoided or lied systematically to constituents across the nation as Obama’s namesake “healthcare” plan was proclaimed the “best thing” for the American people. And goodness knows, if it’s the best thing it MUST be imposed one way or another—for our own good!

So why have the left not promptly enacted the strict gun control measures they have bandied about during the past month? So what if those proposals are not exactly constitutional. Neither was ObamaCare until a Supreme Court justice prostituted himself, his reputation, and the Constitution of the United States in order to shamelessly MAKE it so.

And what does it matter if the American people don’t WANT their favorite firearms banned or confiscated? The public didn’t want ObamaCare either. We still don’t!

Democrats had a big election victory, they own the media, and 20 children were brutally killed; yet after one full month, we have heard nothing but overblown threats and vague promises of a coming Executive Order. Let’s face it. The 2nd Amendment isn’t like healthcare. And threatening to ban or confiscate the guns of 100 million people is just a little different from demanding they own a dental policy.

Democrats and the rest of the far left are anxious. Demand people turn in their bran- new “assault weapon” –or else–and you’re likely to get one hell of a big dose of or else! The left have enjoyed no small success intimidating the public into accepting—or at least not rebelling against—the dictates of political correctness. But these self-important fixtures of the political ruling class have finally decided to take on the biggest issue there is. And they realize they cannot afford to fail.

For should gun owners stand resolved against forced registration, weapon bans, and orders of confiscation, how will the left respond? Will SWAT teams begin breaking down doors and firing on the American public? If so, millions of outraged gun owners might declare open season on the Marxist ruling class.

Even Elmer Fudd might bag something on that day!

Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Will Obama Exceed His Authority—Again?

By Richard Larsen

Obama Feeds America SC Will Obama Exceed His Authority—Again?

Charged by President Obama with forming a task force to examine possible solutions to senseless shootings as we saw at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut last month, Vice President Joe Biden mentioned one tool available to the president is the Executive Order (EO). It is a viable tool for a president to specify how established constitutional precedent or statutes will be enforced, but it cannot be used to create law. If the president uses the EO to limit the Second Amendment, or to raise the debt limit, as has also been suggested, he would clearly be acting unlawfully.

There is only the most tenuous support for the use of the EO in the Constitution. Article II, Section, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution instructs that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of America’s tripartite government (executive, legislative, and judicial) “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

And for the most part, that is how the over 13,000 Executive Orders have been used over the past 240 years. Presidents have issued them, and Administrative Orders, to clarify or facilitate executive branch employees and agencies in implementing or enforcing laws in the Federal Register. In our constitutional republic, laws are made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The executive branch’s responsibility is to ensure that the laws created by legislative act are enforced, or executed.

Respect for the rule of law, the Constitution, and separation of powers are all that prevent our republic from turning into a despotic, totalitarian state. The executive branch has grown so much in power over the past 100 years especially, that it would not take much effort on the part of an unprincipled power-monger to literally usurp power reserved to the legislative and judicial branches, and act in totalitarian fashion by declaring laws and edicts from the Oval Office, if left unchecked.

That’s why many across the nation were alarmed last year when Obama brazenly declared, “If congress doesn’t act, I will.” What that signaled to the nation is that Obama considered his power to not be limited by constitutional or legal constraints, and that he could simply change or enact law by declaration, Executive Order, or fiat.

The limits of presidential declarations, like the EO, were clarified judicially by the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. By Executive Order 10340, President Harry Truman declared that all steel mills in the country were to be placed under federal government control. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the EO was invalid since Truman was essentially creating, or making law, as opposed to clarifying the executive branch enforcement of an existing law.

John Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley, said in a research piece last year, “It’s the duty of the President. He must always uphold the law.” He further indicated that the only exceptions in doing so are if laws are unconstitutional or if prosecuting them can be reasonably deemed not viable.

Yoo’s comments were made following Obama’s Executive Directive to the Department of Homeland Security, that essentially granted amnesty to certain illegal aliens. Yoo, and co-author Robert Delahunty of the University of St. Thomas, argued that Obama created new law, by declaring that his DHS was not going to enforce legal statute.

Obama displayed the same contempt for constitutional constraints on his power when he declared he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is precisely why many are concerned with yet another Obama term, where constitutional and legislative limitations on his power will likely be ignored even more blatantly. When the President arbitrarily chooses which laws to enforce and which not to, and assumes or usurps powers of the states or other branches of government to which he has no lawful for legal claim, he is no longer functioning as a President for the people, but as a dictator of his own will.

On January 21, for the second time in four years, Obama will place his left hand on the Bible, raise his right arm to the square, and promise before the nation and the world that he will, to the best of his ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If, after making that promise, the president willfully and intentionally breaks his oath by either imposing new restrictions on the Second Amendment, or to increase the debt limit, by Executive Order, his actions will be tantamount to newlyweds immediately breaking their vows through infidelity. A citizen that acts outside of the law is, by definition, a criminal, and it’s no different for a President. The question each of us must ask is, how many times will he be allowed to trample the Constitution he has promised to uphold?

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

The Left’s Fascination With Death…

By Alan P. Halbert

Abortion Protestor SC The Left’s Fascination with Death...

If we were to evaluate the ideology of the Left, we would find a common thread that runs through all flavors of Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Progressive Democratic beliefs; and that is that death is integral with the inculcation of their philosophies. The Germans, Russians, and Chinese used a brutal implementation of their beliefs as they transformed their societies and nations in a compressed time span that resulted in conservatively 262 million deaths in the 20th century alone.

To accomplish this slow transformation, it is vital to attack and destroy our nation’s long-standing Judeo-Christian values, principles, and mores and advocate lifestyles that do not require commitment to their fellow man, much less raising a family. The single most frightening statement heard by today’s youth is: “dude, you knocked-up your girlfriend?”

The answer of course is the abortionist.

Why should he or she be burdened with any responsibilities at such a young age? Ironically,“think of the children” is the left’s constant refrain.

When a society accepts the unbridled slaughter of innocent lives least able to speak for themselves (approximately 50 million in the 40 years of Roe v. Wade) all under the guise of “it’s my body, my choice” then other choices become easier to make and become accepted by a so-called moral and just society.

However, the left continues to advocate the destruction of personal responsibility so that other more destructive agendas are possible. We see it with the endless social engineering of welfare programs that take personal responsibility to a new low.

The ultimate accusation of these society-destroying policies becomes evident when we see multi-generational families conditioned to abrogate personal responsibility for themselves, their families, and their neighbors from a paternalistic so-called benevolent state with benefits that meet their basic needs into perpetuity. While, at the same time making them covetous of others’ success by the soul-destroying envy of dependence, exploited to full measure by Obama and his supporters of course.

In this heady brew of personal choice, responsibility is discouraged in favor of short-term solutions (sound familiar?) Washington has embraced this paradigm with all reasoned deliberation being thrown out the window for personal political gain by both Democrats and Republicans alike…what is in it for me?

We are implementing ObamaCare in a similar fashion to the European model with the same regulatory edicts becoming evident…we are beginning to see the full agenda for the aged in this rollout as another segment of innocent lives who have little use in a more enlightened society that the “left” envisions.

After paying a lifetime of tax revenues, it is now time for them to exit this life before they cost society too much in medical care in the autumn and winter season of their dwindling lives.

Dignity has nothing to do with transforming a nation.

We are seeing the much-maligned “death panels” that Sarah Palin warned us about being rolled out along with the willingness of government bureaucrats to regulate elders literally to death by denying them life-saving treatment. This is how the socialist model has played out in Europe as the internment and death camps of the past are much too disturbing to their citizens as a society educated to accept “DEATH” that these philosophies espouse is the preferred outcome.

All for the payment of their medical and long-term care from the State, there is a limit to their compassion.

This is in direct contrast to the gentle and humanistic philosophy of the individual as championed by our Constitution with citizens, making choices for themselves free from interference of the state for their own lives with the loving assistance of their family, friends, and clergy as they meet their failing health or demise on their own terms.

We are rapidly coming to the end game (fundamental transformation) as the nation is being manipulated by Obama and his cohorts to accelerate the transformational process begun in 2009 and bring his new society “Forward”  sooner than later.

This is where we are deviating from the European model.

The coming year will be filled with one assault after another against our basic freedoms in the all- too-familiar exaggerated media push that we must act in all haste, with Obama forever on the Stump. Failing the legislative avenue, the tyranny of the Executive Order will be used to full effect and accepted by a neutered Congress.

This can only mean that the left has grown impatient of the stealthy means of overthrow of this nation’s principles, or they feel they have accomplished their “re-educational” goals; take your pick.

Obama and his cohort are now preparing an all-out assault on our fundamental right to defend ourselves from all who would prey upon the citizens in our nation. Whether they are criminals, gangsters, Islamists, or our own government since they now wish to disarm the nation’s citizens of the means to throw off such tyranny or brutality.

Obama’s first objective is to marginalize and criminalize law-abiding citizens by characterizing them as pariahs who exercise their antiquated concept of our Second Amendment rights and freedoms. At the same time, he will reward another huge segment of our society that actually are criminals that have willingly broken our laws by bestowing amnesty on them…by granting citizenship to illegal aliens.

Consequently, cartel drug gangs are comprised mostly of illegal aliens and are arming themselves with high-power military-style “Assault Weapons” and pose a very real threat to citizens and law enforcement alike. One has to wonder whether they are getting weapons supplied from Hezbollah through the Mexican drug cartel pipeline that Eric Holder and Obama set up with Fast & Furious along with the poison they are spreading onto our streets.

In Obama’s ultimate wisdom, he has eliminated the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) that coordinated and reduced crime from Drug Cartels and their violence, which account for the vast majority of all murders in our nation (some place this estimate as high as 75%. )This agency was eliminated in June 2011; however, Obama failed to tout during last year’s contentious election an astonishing 60% reduction and elimination of cartel activity in 1500 American cities from 2010 to 2011 in an incredible one year’s time frame prior to disbanding of the NDIC.

Such a remarkable law enforcement effort should have been shouted from the rooftops!

Not claiming victory over such a major threat to the Nation seems unlikely and sketchy at best from a regime that puffs up the smallest details of other areas of their so-called accomplishments, particularity economic data. Speaking about economic data, in another curious move, Obama eliminated a similar agency in 2011 as well that reports on economic intelligence data that had been in constant publication since 1878 and listed all government spending right down to zip code.

Not having the means to verify the spending makes it impossible to reconcile the deficit spending that Congress does not budget for in the first place. One of the cornerstones of a Democratic Republic is open government and reporting of its activities; our government is going dark as Obama and his cohorts put policies in place to dismantle our nation.

This topsy-turvy scheme is readily apparent to the more rational amongst us, those of us destined for re-education, being caught in the crossfire or death depending on our age by a paternalistic and benevolent state in the age of Obama as the end game unfolds. The media, academia, and our legislators appear to celebrate this agenda, as they are all complicit in these nation-destroying acts as they revel in carving-up the spoils of the moribund carcass of this once great nation and line their own pockets with the proceeds.

However, there is still time to turn back the clock and this march to our eventual national suicide as a Constitutional Republic. The makers in our society, the 53% that actually pay income taxes, should act with one voice and refuse to send any more of the “Fruits of their Labor” to Washington in the form of TAXES.

In effect, I propose starving the Beast of revenue in a modern Tax Revolt modeled on 1776. We must exhaust all peaceful means to stop the destruction of the Republic. In addition, we must simply refuse to be disarmed.

If you think about it, we are actually giving the means of our own destruction to brigands that cannot even perform the rudiments of their Constitutional duty by passing a stinking budget as they “eat out our existence” with onerous taxes that are squandered on sycophants, supporters, and constituents of Obama and the indolent that he has created, whole heatedly supports, endorses, and panders to.

In addition, taxpayers are required to continue in his endeavor by unjust laws to support such folly as Obama rides the so-called rich, corporations, businesses, and taxpayers into the ground for his own ends. Rational men and women will indeed make other choices bringing us into headlong confrontation with elements that are bringing us to our very destruction and the Left’s fascination with death.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism