Archive for the Obama’s Socialist Tactics Exposed Category
THE tendency of the principle of legislation for States, or communities, in their political capacities, as it has been exemplified by the experiment we have made of it, is equally attested by the events which have befallen all other governments of the confederate kind, of which we have any account, in exact proportion to its prevalence in those systems. The confirmations of this fact will be worthy of a distinct and particular examination. I shall content myself with barely observing here, that of all the confederacies of antiquity, which history has handed down to us, the Lycian and Achaean leagues, as far as there remain vestiges of them, appear to have been most free from the fetters of that mistaken principle, and were accordingly those which have best deserved, and have most liberally received, the applauding suffrages of political writers.
This exceptionable principle may, as truly as emphatically, be styled the parent of anarchy: It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.
It remains to inquire how far so odious an engine of government, in its application to us, would even be capable of answering its end. If there should not be a large army constantly at the disposal of the national government it would either not be able to employ force at all, or, when this could be done, it would amount to a war between parts of the Confederacy concerning the infractions of a league, in which the strongest combination would be most likely to prevail, whether it consisted of those who supported or of those who resisted the general authority.
It would rarely happen that the delinquency to be redressed would be confined to a single member, and if there were more than one who had neglected their duty, similarity of situation would induce them to unite for common defense. Independent of this motive of sympathy, if a large and influential State should happen to be the aggressing member, it would commonly have weight enough with its neighbors to win over some of them as associates to its cause. Specious arguments of danger to the common liberty could easily be contrived; plausible excuses for the deficiencies of the party could, without difficulty, be invented to alarm the apprehensions, inflame the passions, and conciliate the good-will, even of those States which were not chargeable with any violation or omission of duty. This would be the more likely to take place, as the delinquencies of the larger members might be expected sometimes to proceed from an ambitious premeditation in their rulers, with a view to getting rid of all external control upon their designs of personal aggrandizement; the better to effect which it is presumable they would tamper beforehand with leading individuals in the adjacent States. If associates could not be found at home, recourse would be had to the aid of foreign powers, who would seldom be disinclined to encouraging the dissensions of a Confederacy, from the firm union of which they had so much to fear. When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of irritated resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extremes necessary to avenge the affront or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union.
This may be considered as the violent death of the Confederacy. Its more natural death is what we now seem to be on the point of experiencing, if the federal system be not speedily renovated in a more substantial form. It is not probable, considering the genius of this country, that the complying States would often be inclined to support the authority of the Union by engaging in a war against the non-complying States. They would always be more ready to pursue the milder course of putting themselves upon an equal footing with the delinquent members by an imitation of their example. And the guilt of all would thus become the security of all. Our past experience has exhibited the operation of this spirit in its full light. There would, in fact, be an insuperable difficulty in ascertaining when force could with propriety be employed. In the article of pecuniary contribution, which would be the most usual source of delinquency, it would often be impossible to decide whether it had proceeded from disinclination or inability. The pretense of the latter would always be at hand. And the case must be very flagrant in which its fallacy could be detected with sufficient certainty to justify the harsh expedient of compulsion. It is easy to see that this problem alone, as often as it should occur, would open a wide field for the exercise of factious views, of partiality, and of oppression, in the majority that happened to prevail in the national council.
It seems to require no pains to prove that the States ought not to prefer a national Constitution which could only be kept in motion by the instrumentality of a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of the government. And yet this is the plain alternative involved by those who wish to deny it the power of extending its operations to individuals. Such a scheme, if practicable at all, would instantly degenerate into a military despotism; but it will be found in every light impracticable. The resources of the Union would not be equal to the maintenance of an army considerable enough to confine the larger States within the limits of their duty; nor would the means ever be furnished of forming such an army in the first instance. Whoever considers the populousness and strength of several of these States singly at the present juncture, and looks forward to what they will become, even at the distance of half a century, will at once dismiss as idle and visionary any scheme which aims at regulating their movements by laws to operate upon them in their collective capacities, and to be executed by a coercion applicable to them in the same capacities. A project of this kind is little less romantic than the monster-taming spirit which is attributed to the fabulous heroes and demi-gods of antiquity.
Even in those confederacies which have been composed of members smaller than many of our counties, the principle of legislation for sovereign States, supported by military coercion, has never been found effectual. It has rarely been attempted to be employed, but against the weaker members; and in most instances attempts to coerce the refractory and disobedient have been the signals of bloody wars, in which one half of the confederacy has displayed its banners against the other half.
The result of these observations to an intelligent mind must be clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution. It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of justice. The government of the Union, like that of each State, must be able to address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals; and to attract to its support those passions which have the strongest influence upon the human heart. It must, in short, possess all the means, and have aright to resort to all the methods, of executing the powers with which it is intrusted, that are possessed and exercised by the government of the particular States.
To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.
The pausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or TO ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.
But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, unless in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.
If opposition to the national government should arise from the disorderly conduct of refractory or seditious individuals, it could be overcome by the same means which are daily employed against the same evil under the State governments. The magistracy, being equally the ministers of the law of the land, from whatever source it might emanate, would doubtless be as ready to guard the national as the local regulations from the inroads of private licentiousness. As to those partial commotions and insurrections, which sometimes disquiet society, from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or from sudden or occasional illhumors that do not infect the great body of the community the general government could command more extensive resources for the suppression of disturbances of that kind than would be in the power of any single member. And as to those mortal feuds which, in certain conjunctures, spread a conflagration through a whole nation, or through a very large proportion of it, proceeding either from weighty causes of discontent given by the government or from the contagion of some violent popular paroxysm, they do not fall within any ordinary rules of calculation. When they happen, they commonly amount to revolutions and dismemberments of empire. No form of government can always either avoid or control them. It is in vain to hope to guard against events too mighty for human foresight or precaution, and it would be idle to object to a government because it could not perform impossibilities.
NEW YORK – Troops in the United States’ USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength of a plan to integrate North America.
The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.
It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit’s service in North Africa in World War II.
The insignia patch is displayed on the 5th Army website, the home of U.S. Army North, USARNORTH, the Joint Force Land Component Command and the Army Service Component Command of USNORTHCOM.
The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif.
Army shoulder patch of North American continent in U.N. colors
In 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series detailing that USNORTHCOM is a U.S. military combatant command created to respond to national emergencies in North America.
WND also has reported that the U.S. and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.
The USNORTHCOM logo similarly displays a continental design, but without the U.N. colors, as is clear from the emblem displayed in the upper left hand corner of the USNORTHCOM Internet homepage:
North America plot
WND reported last month the integration of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful “conspiracy theory,” actually was an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and sold to President Bush as a means of increasing commerce and business interest throughout North America, according to a top Canadian businessman.
Thomas d’Aquino, CEO and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, confirmed in an interview recently published in Canada the accuracy of what WND first reported more than three years ago: The Council on Foreign Relations was the prime mover in establishing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
A close reading of an interview with d’Aquino published by the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Oct. 4 confirms that the creation of the SPP was not a “conspiracy theory” but a well thought-out North American integration plan launched by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.
The interview further confirmed President Obama wants to continue North American integration under the rebranded North American Leaders Summit, providing the North American Competitiveness Council can be recast to include more environmentalists and union leaders.
In the interview, d’Aquino traced the origin of SPP to his concerns after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that “there was a pressing need to keep the border open for commerce while simultaneously addressing the security needs of the United States and North America as a whole.”
With this goal in mind, d’Aquino reported the CCCE by 2003 “launched an agenda that we called the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, or NASPI.”
WND reported in July 2007 the term “Security and Prosperity” first was used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in a Jan. 23, 2003, report, “Security and Prosperity: Toward a New Canada–United States Partnership in North America.”
Then, in 2003, d’Aquino took the idea to Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“I helped convince Richard Haass at the Council on Foreign Relations that we should put together a trilateral task force to look at the future of North America,” d’Aquino said. “We recruited John Manley on Canada’s side, along with William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, and Pedro Aspe, the former Mexican economy minister, who had been so influential in promoting NAFTA.”
The result was a CFR Task Force on the Future of North America created Oct. 15, 2004, and chaired by Manley, Weld and Aspe, precisely as d’Aquino had recommended to Haass.
The CFR Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary entitled “Creating a North American Community” on March 14, 2005, just days prior to the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then–Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then–Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the SPP on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress.
The final report from the group, called “Building a North American Community,” was issued in March 2005, immediately following the Waco summit.
D’Aquino appears to agree the CFR task force was instrumental to the trilateral summit in Waco in which the SPP was declared, saying in the published interview, “The result of all these efforts [by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America] was that in 2005, Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox decided to sign what they called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America – the SPP.”
WND has reported that the two reports issued by the CFR Task Force on the Future of North America were the “blueprint” for the SPP declared at the Waco summit meeting.
The final CFR report’s own statement of purpose is: “The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”
Next, d’Aquino confirmed that the North American Competitiveness Council was hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries, without any legislative approval in any of the three nations, again as WND had reported.
“At their next summit meeting, in 2006, the three leaders invited leading members of the CEO communities in the three countries to provide private-sector input on issues related to competitiveness,” he continued. “From that idea, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was born, to be composed of 10 frontline CEOs from each of Canada, the United States and Mexico.”
How the CFR plan became SPP
“We produced 10 of our most senior CEO’s, while the Americans established an executive committee of 15 representing a broad range of large companies with rotating memberships. The Mexicans produced some heavy-duty people – many names you know well.”
As WND reported at the time, the NACC dominated the third annual SPP summit meeting held in Montebello, Quebec, Canada, in August 2007.
“The first meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007,” d’Aquino confirmed. “Our Mexican and American counterparts graciously asked us to write the first NACC report. It was very well received, albeit heavily criticized by unions on the left and others as elitist: ‘Why did these people have access to the national leaders while everyone else was left out?'”
He then reported the NACC continued to advise the SPP leaders behind closed doors at the fourth annual SPP summit meeting in New Orleans in April 2008.
“The second meeting of the NACC with the three leaders took place at their summit in New Orleans in 2008 – we were in the room with the leaders for a full hour and a half,” he said.
D’Aquino then confirmed Obama would only want to continue with the SPP initiative if more environmentalists and union leaders were included in the private advisory group that had consisted entirely of business leaders under the aegis of the NACC.
“When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisers were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al.”
Still, d’Aquino continued to argue that the NACC should not be abandoned, a decision WND has reported the Obama administration made.
“But at the North American Leaders Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful,” d’Aquino said. “In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues.”
WND repeatedly has reported the unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives – 10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries.
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health InsurancePosted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Police State, Pompous Politicians, The Constitution with tags big brother, Constitution, Dictator, New World Order, Police State, Tyranny on October 21, 2009 by undercover4liberty
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.”
“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”
Hoyer compared a health insurance mandate to the government’s power to levy taxes, saying “we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes.”
The section of the Constitution Hoyer was referring to, Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes, but not the purchasing any type of product or service. The opening paragraph of Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes to, among other things, “provide for the … general welfare of the United States.”
Section 8 partly reads: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The Constitution then details the specific powers of Congress, including raising an Army and Navy, regulating commerce between states, and to “make all laws necessary and proper” for the carrying out of these enumerated powers.
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” concludes Section 8.
CNSNews.com also asked Hoyer if there is a limit to what Congress can mandate that Americans purchase and whether there is anything that specifically could not be mandated to purchase. Hoyer said that eventually the Supreme Court would find a limit to Congress’ power, adding that mandates that unfairly favored one person or company over another would obviously be unconstitutional.
“I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,” Hoyer said. “For instance, if we mandated that you buy General Motors’ automobiles, I believe that would be far beyond our constitutional responsibility and indeed would violate the Due Process Clause as well – in terms of equal treatment to automobile manufacturers.”
Hoyer said that the insurance mandate was constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.
“We don’t mandate that they buy a particular insurance [policy] but what we do mandate is that like driving a car — if you’re going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly – that you need to have insurance,” said Hoyer.
In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported the following about health insurance mandates: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
Under all five of the health care bills currently being considered in Congress, every American adult would have to have a policy that conformed to government standards for coverage and premiums. Each bill creates Bronze, Silver, and Gold health insurance plans and mandates that Americans buy one of them, either through their employer or through government-run exchanges.
David B. Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer with Baker & Hostetler, told CNSNews.com that Hoyer’s argument was “silly,” adding that if the general welfare clause was that elastic, then nothing would be outside of Congress’ powers.
“Congressman Hoyer is wrong,” Rivkin said. “The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that’s true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything.
“The arguments are, I believe, feeble,” he said.
It’s now official—the average American is not as stupid as Washington DC Democrats and their international leftist friends thought. Their mystery messiah has already gone from hero to zero after only seven months in power, and Obama has now become a noose around the neck of every American Democrat, and every international fascist who “hoped” Obama could usher in Marxist “change.”
Nobody can organize a community like a good old fashioned communist thug can. It worked long enough to put a mystery man in the Oval Office, thanks to international socialists working through CPUSA – SPUSA and DSAUSA, funded by literally hundreds of leftist front-groups operating as special interest 527 organizations.
Here’s a short list of the BIGGEST leftist front groups – America Coming Together – Joint Victory Campaign 2004 – Media Fund – Service Employees International Union – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees – MoveOn.org – New Democrat Network – Sierra Club – EMILY’s List – AFL-CIO – League of Conservation Voters.
Who spends an obscene $1 Billion dollars to win a lousy $400,000 per year job, and why?
The people behind Obama expect a return on their investment. And they are NOT the kind of folks you want to disappoint… These folks make Capone look like a choir boy.
Before the ink was dry on Obama’s fake Certification of Live Birth (not to be confused with an actual birth certificate), Obamanation was off to confiscate control of banking, insurance, energy and auto manufacturing. Before they knew what was happening, the American people woke up the proud new owner of Government Motors and $13 Trillion in debt.
But it wasn’t until Obamanation tried to confiscate control of 1/7th of the US economy by nationalizing the private American health care industry that the people took to the streets in protest.
On the heels of dozens of angry Town Hall meetings turned public tar and feathering parties for countless career DC bureaucrats, Obama and his Democrat partners in crime found themselves in a historic freefall from popularity among average American taxpayers. Eight months into office, Obama has bounced Jimmy Carter from his famous position as America’s worst president.
The people behind the puppet in our Oval Office did what leftists always do. They over-estimated themselves, under-estimated the American people, and over-played their hand. They actually thought that Americans would sit quiet as unbridled leftists trampled all over 300 million Americans.
That was the good new….
As Obama becomes an anvil chained around the neck of DC and international leftists, he becomes a liability to their agenda. These folks have an interesting way of dealing with political liabilities.
Losing control of their agenda and in a power-slide towards the bottomless pit of political has-beens, Democrats are desperate to keep their international friends at bay. But at the same time, being career politicians always focused on self-preservation, they must find a way to get re-elected by people ready to lynch them in Public Square.
Obama has foolishly allowed himself to be pushed into a no-win position, in his unlikely quest to “make history” by becoming the first “black” mystery messiah allowed to sit at the big desk with his finger on the red button.
In short, he’s in way over his head, just as many worried would be the case with a freshman politician complete with blank r√©sum√©. Nancy “crazy as an out-house rat” Pelosi is no help and Harry Reid is headed for the political boneyard no matter what.
Teddy Kennedy is in no position to lead the young lad out of the woods, and wannabes like Chucky Schumer and Bawny Fwank will soon be looking for an escape hatch of their own.
Time to Bring in the Heavy Artillery and Circle the Wagons
Since Obama just won’t become the “transparent president” he tricked so many voters into voting for, the issue of his constitutional conflict won’t go away. $1.35 million in legal defense fees later, the demand to see proof that he passes Article II requirements is getting louder.
Despite around the clock media efforts to paint every constitutionally conscious American a “right-wing racist Timothy McVeigh,” the people seem only further agitated by the leftist suggestion that NO American citizen has “proper standing” to question their employees (elected representatives) on even the most fundamental questions.
Obama’s problem with Americans isn’t the mulatto color of his skin. It’s the bright RED color of his belief system and agenda. He is undoubtedly making mentors like Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis and Bill Ayers quite proud. But he is clearly losing the support of many Americans in that effort.
Before the dissent gets any wider spread, they have to do something.
Out of nowhere comes Obama’s “experts” on national security, the Southern Poverty Law Center. At the time of SPLC’s founding, Julian Bond, who currently chairs the NAACP, was named the fledgling group’s first President.
On the basis of these folks, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security issued a “Right-wing Extremist” threat analysis, labeling every American with a gun or bible, or willing to publicly oppose Obama, a “potential domestic terrorist.”
Yesterday, British newspaper The Independent published a story titled The right-wing crackpots taking over the mainstream, in which British leftist writer Rupert Cornwell proceeds to assault all American citizens who are currently speaking out against Obama’s “global” agenda, and warns of coming civil unrest, and of course, his authority on the matter is the Southern Poverty Law Center.
From the report, one SPLC official says, “every element is in place for a “perfect storm” of home-grown extremism. For the first time, the detested federal government is run by a black man.”
There ya have it! That was easy! It’s all about the “black man!”
“A struggling economy fuels discontent, with illegal immigrants accused of stealing American jobs.”—Or is it that unemployment has doubled to the highest level since the great depression, under the “black mans” brief administration?
“The military, long a breeding ground of the far right, is sending home veterans in vast numbers.”—Yes, those crazed military veterans…
And don’t forget… “Finally there is the internet, which simultaneously propagates and intensifies the feelings of true believers—and the conspiracy theories they devour.”—The so-called “birthers” have made headlines all over the world?
Clearly, Cornwell received his talking points memo from David Axelrod, who obviously got his from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Observer got the memo too, and they wasted no time attacking every American at odds with Obama’s agenda.
It’s American Patriots against the world, or at least the leftists of the world.
Cornwell concludes, “So might not elements even further to the right enter the fray—“sovereign citizens” who believe they are above the law, or the new “Oath Keepers” movement, of soldiers and police officers past and present, who believe their duty is to the constitution, not to elected politicians? Perhaps the healthcare rallies and the SPLC report were no coincidence, after all.”
Well, let me just say that I think Obama’s life could in fact be in danger, but not from Tea Party protesters, Town Hall protesters or so-called “birthers.” All of these folks are well aware of the reality that assassinating the first “black” president would be counter-productive to their agenda.
The Obama press has been burning the midnight oil trying to make certain that Hillary Clinton’s “right-wing conspiracy” ghosts were set up to take the fall for any misfortunate event that might befall an increasingly unpopular president. No “right-winger” is likely to even break wind in Obama’s direction.
His leftist international friends are quite another story however…
These are BIG buck—BIG socialism folks who play by no particular set of rules, like George Soros. As Obama becomes more of a liability than an asset to their cause, it is his own people who are most likely to make a martyr out of the mystery messiah.
In the British Observer, writer Paul Harris is even more extreme in his column, Fears for Barack Obama’s safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism … and once again, we see the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The stage is being set… If anything happens to Obama, the entire world has been put on notice that Americans opposed to socialism from a “black” nobody president who won’t even release his birth records, are responsible.
This leaves the door wide open for Obama’s own friends to commit the crime with impunity, as they have already placed the American patriots’ finger-prints on the imaginary murder weapon.
It would be the perfect crime blamed on the perfect right-wing storm. It’s brilliant!
The leftist press around the world has already accused and convicted “right-wingers” of the murder. Talk about your grand conspiracy… Nobody does it better than the international leftist cabal.
But who is this Southern Poverty Law Center responsible for all of the recent “hate speech” aimed at constitutionally concerned American citizens opposed to bankruptcy-by-communism in America?
In 2007, SPLC identified 888 separate “active hate groups” in the United States.
Despite the events of 9/11 and an ongoing threat of additional terror strikes here and abroad, not one of the 888 “active hate groups” identified was Islamic. Detroit Michigan had more violent killings than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, but none of the groups responsible for those killings made the list of 888.
Only white, capitalist, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom, in other words, “right-wing extremists” made the list.
Black on white crime is not “hate.” Black on black crime is not “hate.” Muslim on Christian crime is not “hate.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, only white, Christian, capitalists opposed to Marxism and attending Town Hall meetings are guilty of “hate.”
That’s what their report says, and everyone from Obama’s DHS and FBI to England’s press has bought that report hook, line and sinker.
I too fear for Obama’s life… But not from any of the people attending Tea Parties or Town Hall meetings in an effort to talk with their elected representatives.
I fear that Obama’s life is increasingly in danger from the very people who put him in power – The people he is currently failing, as the American people stand up to stop his secular socialist global agenda.
I am 100% opposed to the Obama administration and today’s Democrat agenda. But I am here to tell you that the worst thing that could happen in America today is for Obama to be assassinated. Every Obama opponent knows this. He would be safest if he were guarded around the clock by American conservatives opposed to his entire agenda.
Only his leftist partners around the world would benefit from his assassination. Their agenda would move forward unchallenged if anything were to happen to Obama or his family.
As his agenda meets with serious resistance at home, his puppet masters abroad will lose faith and eventually, their patience. Only a freshman senator would have fallen for the trap Obama finds himself in today.
He can’t win… If he’s very lucky, he can only live to tell about it one day.
Obama has spent an entire lifetime surrounded by some of the world’s worst thugs. If he is unable to move their agenda forward, his life will be at risk from within his own ranks.
However, the nation and the world will pay a heavy price, as both are being conditioned to blame it on average Americans who simply oppose all forms of intrusive tyrannical government.
As Obama’s agenda is shut down by average Americans, his friends will turn on him. Liberals are already warning him not to back off on nationalized health care. But the people are not going to allow it to go forward.
Even though I oppose everything Obama is and everything he stands for, I pray for his safety. You can bet your last dollar… his well organized community is falling apart as his agenda begins to crumble. They will be very motivated to ignite a second civil war as they watch their agenda die a brutal political death.
Nothing would ignite a second civil war faster than the assassination of Barack Hussein Obama. I can only pray that the Secret Service does not take their cues from the Southern Poverty Law Center. If they are no better at understanding political security than British op-ed pages, Obama’s life is indeed in danger.
Not from so-called “right-wing extremists” angry over Obama’s blatant disregard for the Constitution today. But from within his ranks, as those who placed him in power, become saddled with his failures.
So about now, the obvious question should be: What exactly IS government? The answer comes from German sociologist Max Weber: Government is that entity which has a monopoly on force within a prescribed geographic area. The key word here is FORCE. Government and only government can legally use physical force to achieve its goals. Government agents can punish you, with whatever level of violence they think is necessary, to whip the citizenry into line.
A government agent can approach you with a deadly weapon
and demand your money. You and I cannot legally do that. But the agent can whip out a card that says he’s a government employee, and for reasons that befuddle me, it’s suddenly OK.
A government agent can tell a business owner: “Mr. Businessman,
we don’t like the way you run your business, we don’t like the prices you charge, we don’t like what you pay your employees. Our people will now come in and straighten things out.” And if the business owner protests, they can haul him away and lock him up.
The government, by way of the Federal Reserve, can counterfeit our currency. They say they’re “stimulating the economy,
” but if you or I attempt to “stimulate the economy” like that, we would surely endure much suffering.
The targets of government violence do not even have to be inside our borders. The U.S. government can say to any foreign government anywhere: “We don’t like the way you govern your nation. Therefore, we will attack you, invade you, embargo you, and bomb you until you fall into line with our desires.”
Government is violence. And violence is never a tool of productivity, wealth, prosperity, or problem-solving, and it should not matter if the perpetrator has a card saying he’s an employee of the government.
The only positive role of force in a civilized society is to DEFEND your life and property against others who employ violence or dishonesty. But when government uses force to steal your property, run your life and your private affairs, counterfeit the currency, and provoke war, that is not defending anybody. Let’s call government what it really is: a gang of thugs.
The standard response to this charge is that government must do these things because they are acting in the “national interest” or the “common interest” or the “common good” or whatever buzzword you prefer. So let me get this straight: the government must steal my money to pay hordes of fat-cat government bureaucrats their 6-digit salaries because … it’s in my “interest”? The government must spend tens of $billions of my dollars each month to turn some hellhole over in the Middle East into the biggest special interest project in history, because it’s “good” for me? I have no patience with people who feel they can run my life and spend my money better than I can, and are all ready, willing, and able to physically punish me if I disagree.
Another standard answer is that government force is justified because “the people” voted for it, thus government has a “mandate.” Let’s examine this myth. If one does the math, one realizes that the President of the United States is usually elected by only about a fourth of the adult population. (70 million voted for Obama, out of a population of about 250 million over the age of 18, yielding about 28%.) What kind of “mandate” is 28%? And this figures gets much lower when state and local offices are considered, due to low voter turnout.
Furthermore, the typical average voter is a clueless moron who values style and image over substance. Ask any voter in that 28% group why they voted as they did, and odds are you will not get an intelligible answer. They will probably say that the candidate “made them feel good,” or that they simply picked a candidate at random, or they will give the “sheep” answer: “everyone else was voting for him, so I did too!” And this is how politicians acquire the power to run our lives?
So if government didn’t “run the country” and protect the “public interest” and do all the things it attempts to do, who would? The answer, in short: people. Workers, volunteers, entrepreneurs, you and me. People, voluntarily cooperating with one another, acting in their own best interest, can solve problems and produce the goods and services we all need and want. It’s called free enterprise – a system where people are allowed to buy, sell, work, and trade without interference, so long as their actions are peaceful and honest. The free market always can solve problems and produce what people need better than government. There are no exceptions.
Consider: an airplane crash, an event that most people instinctively think only government can prevent. So which of these two people is in a better position to prevent an airplane crash? The CEO of the airline, who’s very livelihood depends on convincing the public that his product is safe, or some bureaucrat in Washington, who’s livelihood depends on the continuation of airplane crashes?
Consider: government “entitlement” programs, where the vast bulk of the collected revenues go to bureaucratic overhead. In contrast, non-profit organizations must demonstrate positive results, else their contributions will disappear.
Profit or non-profit, all private institutions in the free market must convince you to donate, or to buy their product, because it will make your life, or some else’s life, better. They must persuade you to come to work for them by offering a better job than the next guy. Government, on the other hand, says: follow our orders or we will punish you. The free market offers a positive incentive. Government offers a negative incentive.
Is the free market perfect? Of course not, because the free market is run by people, and people are imperfect. But wait a minute – who runs the government? People do, not gods!
But what about all those businesses and non-profits that run fraudulent operations and steal people’s money, or who hire goons and thugs to apply coercion? Let me point out that that is NOT free enterprise. As already stated, people should be left alone as long as their actions are peaceful and voluntary. It is true that, in any society, you will have some people who use violence and dishonesty to try to get ahead. But this type of behavior has never been acceptable and has always been outlawed. But let’s be consistent here – no exceptions if the violent perpetrator happens to bear a card saying he’s a government employee.
So where is this argument going? Should we totally abolish all government? Not necessarily. Government can have a role, but it’s a very small role: to institute a system of justice to protect us from force and fraud. As stated earlier, force is justified only for defending life and property. There are those who feel that government should perform that task; a compromise here is not unreasonable. But everything else government does, or attempts to do, must go.
So quit supporting politicians who use every crisis, every emergency, every problem, every piece of bad news as yet another excuse to make government bigger, more powerful, and more expensive. Instead, look for a politician who promises something like this:
“Because of the current crisis situation, I propose that we totally abolish each of the 100 government agencies listed on this report, and that we reduce government spending by 90%. Yes, I know it’s very drastic, and it will be very painful; but, it’s an emergency. And it’s a proven fact that big government does not work.”