Selasa, 03 April 2012

I reckon we will start to see more columns suggesting action taken to deal with the Obama issues - once the economy swoons inevitably again , as the Wars continue to drain resources without tangible results , as the war or terror becomes terror on US citizens and trampling further on the Bill of rights and what's left of the Constitution , as Obama's words and conduct become more flagrant and offensive to an ever growing cross section of folks ......I think we are seeing signs as to why preemptive steps to stifle dissension / stifle protests / detain americans / intrude into citizen privacy in search of the next Bin Laden or in the meantime " domestic terrorists - we can see why these steps are occurring now.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php?ref=fpblg


Full Text Of Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution."Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

consider the following items and wonder how Obama's recent actions may be viewed ....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-immigration-arizona-idUSBRE83213Z20120403


(Reuters) - The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration's Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department's demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

"We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith," Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio's team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.
good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action," Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the "failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes" by Arpaio's office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio's force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

"To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!" Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio's force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama's Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

and then look at this item....

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/219727-obama-assails-gop-romney-for-radical-budget-vision

Combative Obama assails GOP, Romney for 'radical' budget vision

By Amie Parnes and Russell Berman 04/03/12 08:19 PM ET
President Obama delivered an election-year assault on Republicans on Tuesday for pushing a “Trojan horse” budget plan that he said outlines a “radical vision” for the future of the United States. 
In a clear sign that the general election is under way, the president, in the address, criticized Mitt Romney by name for the first time and mocked House Republicans for creating a “laughable” budget that “makes the Contract With America look like the New Deal.”“It’s nothing but thinly veiled Social Darwinism,” Obama said at a lunch before a ballroom of editors and reporters. “It’s antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work hard for it, a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.
“It is a prescription for decline,” Obama added.
The broadside was the latest in a series of addresses delivered over the presidential seal that have sounded like campaign speeches, and it drew an immediate and aggressive rebuttal from leading Republicans, who denounced Obama’s handling of the economy and the debt.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the architect of the GOP budget that Obama assailed, said the president has “chosen tired and cynical political attacks as he focuses on his own reelection.”
“History will not be kind to a president who, when it came time to confront our generation’s defining challenge, chose to duck and run,” Ryan said. “The president refuses to take responsibility for the economy and refuses to offer a credible plan to address the most predictable economic crisis in our history.”
Obama pivoted firmly toward the general election in the roughly 40-minute speech, linking Romney to a policy blueprint that Democrats believe will be a significant liability for GOP candidates in the fall.
“One of my potential opponents, Gov. Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency,” Obama said. “He said that he’s very supportive of this new budget. And he even called it marvelous, which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget.
“It’s a word you don’t often hear generally,” Obama said to laughter.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed the president for taking “partisan potshots” and said he has “chosen to campaign rather than govern.”
“Instead of reaching across the aisle to enact the changes needed to restore America’s prosperity, the president has resorted to distortions … and recommitted himself to policies that have made our country’s debt crisis worse,” Boehner said in a statement. 
“He’s so unserious about our country’s problems that he’s offered a budget that failed to garner a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. And his own party leadership in the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than 1,000 days.”
Obama saved his sharpest barbs for the Republican Party, which he accused of lacking “humility” and “doubling down” on failed economic policies.
He unleashed an extended attack on “trickle-down economics,” and made plain — as he did in a speech in Kansas late last year — that income inequality and economic populism will be central to his reelection message.
Casting his own agenda as “centrist,” Obama argued, both during the speech and in a subsequent question-and-answer session, that the Republican Party has veered sharply to the right. 
“Instead of moderating their views even slightly,” Obama said, “the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract With America look like the New Deal.”
He highlighted the tax-increasing budget deals that Ronald Reagan signed in the 1980s and said the conservative icon “could not get through a Republican primary today.”
The Ryan budget cleared the House on Thursday in a 228-191 party-line vote, setting up an election-year contrast with Democrats on spending and the debt. The budget would shave off about $5 trillion more than the president’s 2013 proposal and would create a “premium support” option to help future Medicare recipients obtain private insurance.
Boehner last week said the Ryan plan is a “vision” of how the party would govern should it secure control of the House and Senate in November.
After the plan was passed in the House, the White House attacked Republicans in a statement, saying they “banded together to shower millionaires and billionaires with a massive tax cut paid for by ending Medicare as we know it.”
But a fight over spending and the deficit is one the GOP is eager to have, and Republican leaders responded swiftly and aggressively to Obama’s rebuke.
The chairman of the House GOP conference, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), who co-chaired the failed deficit “supercommittee” last fall, said the president was “unhinged” and engaged in “fear-mongering.”
and note the reaction of the Fifth Circuit to Obama's blast toward the Supreme Court....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/


Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

By
Jan Crawford
Topics
Supreme Court
(Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Updated 6:55 p.m. ET
(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.
Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."
I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.
UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but thepresident today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."
Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.
"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.
"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.
And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.

and also this item...

http://endthelie.com/2012/04/03/dhs-wont-explain-its-order-of-450-million-hollow-point-bullets/#axzz1r1tUWpM8



DHS won’t explain its order of 450 million hollow point bullets

After 9/11, the United States government created the Department of Homeland Security to prevent future acts of terrorism and deal with other domestic issues. Now in order to keep doing such, the agency is asking for 450 million hollow point bullets.
The DHS has signed off on an “indefinite delivery” from defense contractors ATK that will include, for some reason, nearly 500 million high-power ammunition for .40 caliber firearms. The department has yet to discuss why they are ordering such a massive bevy of bullets for an agency that has limited need domestically for doing harm, but they say they expect to continue receiving shipments from the manufacturer for the next five years, during which they plan to blow through enough ammunition to execute more people than there are in the entire United States.
“We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS,” reads an official statement from Ron Johnson, ATK’s president of Security and Sporting, who adds that his group will also be giving up weaponry to the DHS subdivision of ICE, or Immigrations and Custom Enforcement.
While ammunition itself seems not too unreasonable of a request by a major federal entity that emphasizes domestic durability and safeguarding the country from coast to coast, the choice — and quantity — of its hollow point order raises a lot of questions about future plans for the DHS. ATK says they won their contract with the US government by being able to provide them with 450 million HST bullets, which it describes as “the next generation in high performance duty ammunition.”
What does that mean, exactly? On their website, the contractor claims that the ammunition is specifically designed so that it can pass through a variety of obstructions and offers “optimum penetration for terminal performance.” Or, in other words, this is the kind of bullet designed to stop any object dead in its tracks and, if emptied into the hands of the DHS a few hundred million times, just might do as much.
Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has not only absorbed ICE and other government entities, but has arguably extended its powers much more broadly than many had imagined. Under the recently authorized Trespass Bill, H.R. 347, protesters that allegedly disrupt occurrences acknowledged by the DHS of being a National Special Security Event will be charged with a federal crime. As the DHS gains more and more ground in fighting terrorism domestically, the US at the same time has turned the tables to make its definition of terrorist way less narrow. With any American blogger or free thinking on the fringe of what the government can go after under H.R. 347, or the National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge, the DHS could just be blasting through what’s left of its budget to make sure that its roster of agents across the country can get in their target practice over the next few years.
Of course, the government might just want to ensure that each one of those agents is more than able to assassinate Americans not just around the globe, but on their own soil. After all, for all of those angsty alleged Americans engaged in terrorism abroad, the US has the largest military in the history of the world to deal with them. In that case, they could argue that it only makes sense to equip their armed forces at home as well.

and finally...



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/



Open mic catches Obama asking Russian president for space on missile defense

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) - In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.
"This is my last election," Obama told Medvedev. "After my election I have more flexibility."

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin.
The two leaders talked Monday during a formal one-on-one meeting ahead of the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. In video they are seen seated, almost huddled, facing each other, each man with his elbows on his knees, leaning in closely over a small table, as they speak intently. Part of the exchange was caught on camera at the end of the 90-minute meeting as reporters and cameras entered the room for a quick photo opportunity of Obama and Medvedev.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar