Obama: Anti-Colonial President, Plans for the next term

[Ryan Ruck]

Why, what would ever make us think that?

[vector7]

December 11, 2015
The Obama Revolution Enters its Radical Phase

By Jonathan Keiler

Political scientists long ago developed a template for analyzing the course of classic revolutions, which still works pretty well, as for example, recent events in Egypt demonstrate. While the Obama presidency has not been a real revolution, Obama took office with the deliberate intention of “transforming” United States, a process that has been in many ways almost as painful and destructive as a revolution. That process, like classic revolutions of the past, now appears to be entering its most dangerous and radical phase.

The radical phase of the classic revolutionary cycle comes after a more moderate period, and tends to provoke a strong conservative counter-reaction. It is driven both by the excesses of leaders who see their power and opportunity waning, and the demands of an agitated constituency that feels let down by the pace of change and wants to push the radical agenda to the breaking point. We can see this happening in the country today. It is evident in Obama’s increasingly desperate attempts to remain relevant and press his agendas through any means possible, for example through unconstitutional executive actions. It is evident as well in the rise of extremist movements like Black Lives Matter. Finally, these developments have already provoked a drastic conservative reaction in the person of Donald Trump and his partisans.

More specifically, we can see the artifacts of this radical phase in many developments that mirror violent and disruptive revolutions of the past.

Radical revolutionaries almost always attempt to remake the military, as in the final analysis, it is the locus of the state’s coercive power. The Roundheads created the New Model Army, the French the levee en masse, the Bolsheviks the Red Army. Each was a highly politicized force, raised not only to serve the national defense, but to bolster the radical revolution. Obama has attempted to do much the same with the American military, effectively purging officers not sufficiently compliant to his ideological outlook. Obama has also undermined the military justice system through his interference in the Bergdahl case, and oversaw the prosecution of General David Petraeus (for similar but less serious offenses than those committed by a still uncharged former secretary of State.) Finally, his administration has taken the historically unprecedented step of opening of all combat posts to women, even though the country is not at war, thus distinguishing the United States from countries like Russia and Israel which have allowed the practice, but only during their most desperate wars. The latter step is an attempt at a pure political remaking of the armed forces, having nothing to do with military efficiency or necessity.

The radical phases of revolutions are also marked by violent disturbances and expansive civil unrest, something that we see increasingly in America today, from riots in Missouri and Baltimore, to campus “protests” over largely invented slights. These movements are being led the by leftists who at least appear more radical than the president (or the top Democrats running to replace him) and are successfully pushing all of them to adopt or promote more extreme policies. This again resembles the situation of historic radical leaders who watched their own outlandish programs spin out of control, in most cases consuming them. Obama is at no risk from a guillotine blade, but his self-perception as a brilliant and transformative leader is, and he will do what he can to maintain it, oblivious it seems, to how history or most of the country and the world will ultimately judge him.
And while no guillotines are chopping out a reign of terror in American town squares, the unrest is claiming sacrificial victims in a less bloody way, in the person of police officers. A show trial is underway now in Baltimore, and one is shortly to come in Chicago, while another was barely avoided in Missouri. In terms of legal justification and evidence, these cases do not bear much difference from charges being read from a scaffold. In Missouri an honest prosecutor stymied the process. Hopefully juries will rectify matters in Baltimore, Chicago, and elsewhere, but that remains to be seen. The prosecution of designated political enemies (police, uncooperative generals) while politically protected scoundrels run free (Hillary Clinton) is another mark of the radical phase reaching its climatic state.

Weakness and unrest get the attention of enemies, and historically the radical phase of revolutions attracts foreign attack. It is no accident that after a long period of domestic security following the 9/11 attacks, Islamist terrorist have struck repeatedly at Obama’s America, even as he tries to appease them. Fort Hood, Texas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and most recently San Bernardino, California have been attacked. Obama’s ideological confusion, disorganization, and intellectual incoherence will almost certainly encourage more. These attacks in turn will allow Obama (as he did in the wake of the San Bernardino attack) to shift blame against his domestic enemies on the right (through attacks on gun rights) furthering his own waning agenda, and deflecting pressure from the most radical leftists.

Also inevitable are the false crises, the blaming of inexplicable forces, the hatred of the domestic opposition more than any true enemy of the state. All these factors tended to roil the radical phases of revolutions, as leaders sought to defer and deflect popular anxiety and anger. We see it today as well, in the phony elevation of climate change (something that most Americans could not care less about) to an inchoate existential danger, while both Obama and Hillary Clinton portray Republicans as American enemies, not much differently than the Second Estate or the Whites were in the French or Russian revolutions.

Throughout, the radical revolutionary leader always pretends to be above it all, smarter than the mob, confident of riding the tiger to the end. The incorruptible Robespierre, the analytical Trotsky, all came a cropper in the end though, not as tough, honest, or smart as their apologists pretended. Obama too takes this tone of superior detachment as the West is under attack, unwilling to admit mistakes and so unable to learn from them.

In the end the radical phases of revolutions collapse under the weight of their own chaos and confusion. But the worse the situation becomes, the more it motivates and radicalizes opposition. The English Revolution ended with the last failed Stuarts, the French Napoleon, and the Russian Stalin. Obama’s radical reign is doing just that, in the person of Donald Trump, a demagogic reality television star, who is skillfully channeling the fear and rage of a significant part of the populace. It’s not even hard to believe that Obama is flat-out encouraging the phenomenon, in the expectation that it will upend what might otherwise be a relatively easy Republican victory, given the sorry state of his governance.

America is a stable republic, populated by history’s most reasonable and moderate people. Nevertheless, this descent into radicalism is dangerous. It is highly unlikely to end in the disasters that marked similar stages in other countries through history, but a lot more damage might be done before it ends, and before we get a good idea of what a new beginning might be like.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...cal_phase.html

[vector7]

Flashbacks:

UN Office for Disarmament Affairs – Including Americans

Posted on August 14, 2013 by Martin Armstrong




The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs has released on August 5th with the turn in the ECM an amazing agenda where they will assist member nations to confiscate weapons from civilians. Who is behind this would be very interesting to find out. Effectively, there seems to be an agenda to disarm the people that can only be to cut off revolution. They will certainly not be disarming criminals. This will apply to registered guns.

Given Obama has been buying up all ammunition and tried to ban guns under the pretense of making the streets safer when it is the criminals with the guns that this would have no impact upon, this constant effort to eliminate guns from the public seems to be a very high agenda. We can only ask why? Clearly, agreeing to UN sanctions sidesteps Congress and the American People. Using UN foreign troops on American soil is another very strange agenda.

UN Demands Obama “Nullify” Stand Your Ground Laws

Written by Alex Newman

Wildly overstepping its bounds while revealing a profound ignorance or disdain for America’s constitutional system of government, the United Nations demanded on September 3 that the Obama administration “nullify” Florida’s popular “stand your ground” law. Of course, the president cannot “nullify” anything, let alone state law — and especially not on meaningless orders from the UN.

However, the increasingly out-of-control global bureaucracy claimed in a press release that the U.S. government was “required” to obey its mandates. Unsurprisingly, though, critics promptly ridiculed and lambasted the UN across the Internet, taking apart its bogus claims and once again calling for American withdrawal from the scandal-plagued “dictators club.”

In the press release, the group of self-styled UN “independent experts” began by calling on the Obama administration to finalize its “review” in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. Of course, Zimmerman was cleared of all charges by a jury of his peers earlier this year as experts said the prosecution was out of line even bringing the half-baked case to trial.

Thanks largely to deceptive media reporting and agitation by professional race mongers and the Justice Department, however, the self-defense killing attracted global attention last year. Among the many bizarre and ignorant reactions were demands in the case from the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council” that were blasted by critics as outrageously inappropriate — even silly.

Now, though, the planetary entity has gone even further, purporting to demand obedience from the American people even on state self-defense laws. “States are required to take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists” (emphasis added), claimed Mutuma Ruteere, the UN “Special Rapporteur on Racism.”

In UN speak, “states” are national governments, which the UN presumes have unlimited power to defy constitutional restrictions in submission to global bureaucrats. However, in America, as the UN almost certainly knows by now, nullification refers to actions by state governments aimed at stopping unconstitutional usurpations of power by federal authorities. Across the country, dozens of states have nullified lawless federal statutes, and the trend is accelerating quickly.

Apparently, the UN has not been following the Zimmerman-Martin case very closely either. For one, jurors already ruled that the killing was justified. Secondly, there was not even a shred of evidence presented by any source that Zimmerman, a Hispanic with a long track record of support for blacks, could in any way be thought of as a racist. There is also the fact that the defense did not even cite Florida’s “stand your ground” protections during the trial, mostly because Zimmerman had no way to flee even if he had wanted to.

Finally, studies about the popular law cited in countless media reports revealed that blacks rely on Florida’s “stand your ground” protections far more often than whites as a proportion of the population. Blacks in Florida are also successful using that defense at a higher rate than whites, according to data compiled by researchers. The majority of those killed in Florida “stand your ground” cases, meanwhile, have been white, too.

The UN, seemingly living in some sort of parallel universe where facts are irrelevant, suggested that the state’s protections for self-defense rights are somehow “discrimination” against blacks. “We call upon the U.S. Government to examine its laws that could have discriminatory impact on African Americans, and to ensure that such laws are in full compliance with the country’s international legal obligations and relevant standards,” said UN “human rights expert” Verene Shepherd, chief of the so-called “UN Working Group of Experts of People of African Descent.”

Stand your ground, of course, is a state law that has been adopted in some two dozen states so far. Despite the demands by the self-styled UN “human rights expert,” the federal government does not have any laws to “examine” for “compliance” with “international legal obligations.” That is mostly because the Constitution gives no power to Washington, D.C., to regulate or restrict self-defense rights, so it was not immediately clear which of “its laws” the U.S. government was called on to “examine.” It appears as though Shepherd must have been confused or ignorant about the American system of government, or alternatively, openly disdainful of it.

“The Trayvon Martin case has highlighted the importance of the need to review those existing laws and policies that can have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, as African Americans become more vulnerable to such discrimination,” Shepherd continued. She also cited various UN agreements including the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” the “International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,” and “many other international human rights law treaties;” inaccurately suggesting that they confer some sort of extra-constitutional powers on the federal government to meddle in state affairs and restrict individual rights.

As The New American and countless constitutional experts have explained on numerous occasions, UN agreements and international treaties cannot be used to expand federal powers beyond those outlined in the Constitution. That absurd myth has been debunked since America’s founding, in fact. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” noted Thomas Jefferson in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1957 Reid v. Covert case that Washington, D.C., could never expand its lawful powers just by signing and ratifying an international treaty. In its ruling, the high court found that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

Still, this is hardly the first time self-styled planetary “authorities” have demanded that the U.S. federal government violate the Constitution to enforce UN schemes. Even in the Trayvon Martin case — as local, state, and federal investigations were ongoing — UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” Navi Pillay demanded an investigation and questioned Florida’s self-defense laws.

"As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation," she told reporters, seemingly unaware that three probes were already well underway to determine the facts in the case. "Justice must be done for the victim.” Despite her bold statements, Pillay, a South African, was without question speaking without knowing the facts in the case.

“It's not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this,” she continued. Painting herself as the planet’s “human rights” enforcer, she also questioned the law and expressed “shock” that Zimmerman had not been arrested. “I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned," she added forcefully, apparently misunderstanding the nature and scope of her job.

Critics promptly made a mockery of her statements and stepped up calls for the U.S. government to defund and withdraw from the almost comical global entity. As analysts noted, in America, the U.S. and state constitutions recognize that everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. Americans also cherish their unalienable right to keep and bear arms — also protected by the Constitution — despite UN pressure to infringe upon it.

Ironically, the misnamed UN “Human Rights Council” purporting to be concerned about the United States is composed of more than a few ruthless Islamist and Communist dictatorships that are notorious around the world for viciously abusing the rights of the people they enslave. Among the tyrannical regimes represented on the dubious entity are those ruling over Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and China — some of the most despotic on Earth.

The UN’s priorities were almost incredible. As millions of North Koreans wasted away in concentration camps while the UN gave the dictator sensitive technology, as Chinese women were forced to suffer UN-assisted abortions for defying the communist regime’s “one-child policy,” and as UN troops were being accused of sex crimes around the world, the global body was busy attacking the unalienable human rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

Separately, the UN was also occupied lashing out at Canadian authorities for relatively low taxes and allegedly failing to provide enough welfare. Because many women still stay home to care for their children, Switzerland was also in UN “Human Rights” crosshairs for supposedly not having enough “gender equality.”

As the UN itself explains in its “Declaration of Human Rights,” it believes “rights” are "granted" by governments, not the Creator as explained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The global entity also claims “rights” can be limited “by law” — essentially redefining rights as revocable, government-granted privileges. “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,” the declaration also states.

In recent years, UN efforts to restrict the rights, votes, and sovereignty of Americans have become increasingly threatening and outlandish. Late last year, for example, The New American reported that UN “International Narcotics Control Board” (INCB) boss Raymond Yans demanded Obama quash state sovereignty and the will of voters by overturning the repeal of marijuana prohibition in Colorado and Washington State, which nullified unconstitutional UN mandates and federal statutes.

“These developments are in violation of the international drug control treaties, and pose a great threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states,” Yans alleged, again putting the UN’s ignorance or disdain for America’s system of government on full display for the world to see. Last week, the Obama administration defied the UN demands and said it would not challenge the state measures repealing prohibition, for now — possibly for fear of losing the battle. But the UN is not done yet.

As The New American has also documented extensively, the planetary entity is quietly but quickly working to transform itself into a global government. From so-called “sustainable development” and Agenda 21 to absurd “human rights” demands and perpetually expanding bureaucracies, the UN has made substantial progress — and it is accelerating. Analysts say the best way to stop the scheme in its tracks would be to get the United States out of the UN and cut off all funding immediately.

Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

By JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 30, 2013 AT 3:50 PM

Topics: Beltway Confidential Ted Cruz Chemical Weapons Bashar Assad Justice Department

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the...

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
"The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

"The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.

"The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress's enumerated powers," according to Bond's lawyers.

The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.

"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.

The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.

Here's the list of Senators from last years vote who want the U.N. to come and take it...

Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below .

If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors†… vote against them.

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.

The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)j
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Folks: This needs to go viral.

These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election.

We have been betrayed.

46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Secret Deal Could Contain a Myriad of Gun Restrictions, Ammo Bans!

Created: Thursday, 07 May 2015

Written by Gun Owners of America

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” -- Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, encouraging rapid passage of ObamaCare in 2010

---

ACTION: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch may soon give the President authority to write gun control restrictions into a “trade agreement.” So click here to contact your Senators –- whether they are liberal or conservative. Urge them to vote against the anti-gun “fast track” bill (S. 995).

---

Will UN-style gun control be rammed down our throats?

Gun import bans ... Microstamping of firearms ... Ammunition bans ... The full implementation of the anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty ... Illegal amnesty which locks in millions of new, anti-gun voters.

This anti-gun wish list could be part of the secret trade agreement that President Obama is getting ready to spring on the Congress.

This trade pact is called “fast track,” and what it means is that Obama can write any form of gun control he chooses into a trade agreement -- import bans, amnesty, etc.

And this agreement DOESN’T need two-thirds vote in the Senate, as a treaty would. When completed, the agreement is merely subject to a majority vote in both Houses ... it can't be filibustered ... it can't be amended ... and the GOP can't refuse to consider it.

Top Secret TPP means you won’t know what’s in the bill

Reports have already surfaced that the TOP SECRET draft contains a whole chapter with a European Union-style provision allowing unlimited migration from Mexico into the United States. This would fulfill Obama’s dream -- which he begun with Executive Amnesty -- to import millions of new anti-gun (liberal) voters into the country.



Of course, we can't quote for you any of the language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement because the document is TOP SECRET. Obama won't reveal it, even to most congressmen, until Congress has given it its imprimatur by allowing it to pass under fast track procedures.

On Monday, Politico reported:

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a [congressional] member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

Truly, even more than with ObamaCare, this is a case of "You have to pass it to find out what's in it."

Some Republicans are being duped

But that's not all: The fast track authority being granted to Obama and his successor for the next six years applies to whatever type of trade negotiation Obama chooses to enter into.
So, if he can write the UN Arms Trade Treaty into a trade agreement, then it can't be filibustered or amended or prevented from consideration.

Tragically, many conservative Republicans have listened to business lobbyists -- who are focused on the free trade issues without considering the impact on personal liberties -- and have endorsed fast track. But one business leader recently took Republican lawmakers to the woodshed for this:

By now Congressional Republicans should know better. The Obama administration has stonewalled Congress on many issues, e.g., guns to Mexico and the IRS scandal, and this President has ignored the law and by-passed Congress on such matters as executive amnesty and the Bergdahl prisoner exchange. [The] alleged economic benefits of TPP -- and they are minimal ... -- do not trump the Constitution, the law, and the proper use of fast track.

It is significant that, in Sen. Orrin Hatch's 114-page bill specifying the goals of U.S. trade negotiations (S. 995), there is not a single word prohibiting Obama from using the agreements to implement gun control. And yet, that gun control will be just as binding as if Congress enacted it in a statute.

You can read an article written by GOA’s Legislative Counsel, which goes into this issue in much more detail.

You can also go here to read the full article written by the business leader (mentioned above) explaining why fast track is NOT really about free trade.

ACTION: Contact your Senators -- no matter whether they are conservative or liberal. Urge them to vote against the anti-gun fast track bill (S. 995).

NOTE: Separate letters are used for Republicans and Democrats. But by using GOA’s pre-written letter in the Engage system, the correct letter will be automatically sent.

True Colors

by Marshall Lewin - Monday, January 4, 2016




More

* Originally appeared in the October 2013 print issue

Bureaucrats within the United Nations have admitted what the National Rifle Association predicted, what the gun-ban lobby tried to conceal, and what anyone paying attention has understood all along; that there are increasingly influential forces within the U.N. that want to:

Ban your guns.

Reduce the ranks of gun owners.

Eliminate freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Interfere with U.S. domestic policy—even if that means violating our national sovereignty—to achieve these goals.

It’s all laid out in chilling detail in a document entitled “International Small Arms Control Standards: National Controls Over the Access of Civilians to Small Arms and Light Weapons”—or “ISACS 03.30” for short. The document details one portion of an array of “standards” sought by the U.N.’s “small arms coordination mechanism,” Coordinating Action on Small Arms (casa), which works to implement the U.N.’s Program of Action (POA) on small arms. The POA is part of the U.N.’s efforts to encourage countries to voluntarily adopt domestic firearm regulations.

In its 23 pages, ISACS 03.30 lays out an elaborate, multi-tiered set of “standards” regarding civilian arms ownership—meaning your rifles, shotguns and handguns.

These “standards” for civilian firearm ownership include:

• Bans on firearms said to be “configured for military use” (this is the new U.N.-speak for what anti-gunners ordinarily label “assault weapons”).
• Bans on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
• Universal licensing of all gun owners.
• National registration of all firearms.

But that’s just the beginning. Read this document for yourself—it’s available online—and you’ll see it’s filled with prohibitions, prior restraint, restrictions, limits, disqualifiers, delays and requirements regulating every aspect of your right to acquire, own, use, store, sell, lend, borrow or possess any firearm, ever again.

In short, it reads like the all-time fantasy wish list of the gun-ban lobby.

“This is outrageous,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “For over a decade, the U.N. promised they’d never try to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, or restrict lawful civilian arms ownership, or interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. This ISACS document proves those were empty promises and what their real agenda is.”

United Nations Gun-Ban Treaty Races Toward Ratification

Worse yet, the Obama administration—whose delegation to the U.N. joined 154 other nations in approving the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) at the U.N. General Assembly this past April—is expected to formally sign that treaty, possibly even before this issue arrives in your mailbox. From there, all it would need is the consent of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to become domestic U.S. law.In its 23 pages, ISACS 03.30 lays out an elaborate, multi-tiered set of “standards” regarding civilian arms ownership—meaning your rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Though separate threats now, a danger facing U.S. gun owners is that in the future the U.N. could use the ATT as a vehicle to mandate the draft ISACS 03.30 standards. Moreover, once a critical mass of countries voluntary adopt the standards, they could attain the status of an international “norm” and be used to portray the United States as a “rouge nation” on the subject. This could lead to restrictions on imports and exports of firearms or ammunition, or worse, changes in domestic policy as a result of international pressure to conform.
As Tom Mason, who represents the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, explained, “They claim ISACS is only in draft form as a way to blunt opposition.” But, Mason added, “The Arms Trade Treaty is a deliberately ambiguous treaty.”

How so? According to Mason, because so much of the treaty consists of nebulous “norms,” vague “standards” and unwritten international law, it can be re-interpreted or misapplied to mean whatever the global gun-ban movement wants it to mean.

And that “blank slate” for abuse would apply retroactively. As Mason warned, any nation considering adoption of the treaty should realize that, once the treaty is ratified, the U.N. could very well come back and say that the “standards” set down in ISACS were what the nation already agreed to. In other words, bait and switch.

Worse yet, Mason said, six years after the treaty is ratified, the United Nations can amend it—or add to it—with nothing more than a three-quarters majority vote of its members.

In other words, to paraphrase former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comment regarding the Obama health care mandate, “We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it.”

How The Treaty Could Affect Your Firearms And Freedoms

Here’s a frightening look at what ISACS 03.30 contains already:

First, and maybe most disturbing, ISACS requires nations to enact national laws defining what reasons are “legitimate” for civilians to own firearms.

Although it defines six reasons for owning a gun as “legitimate,” it makes no mention of the primary reason the Second Amendment was written into the U.S. Constitution in the first place: To ensure the security of a free state, which as the United States Supreme Court explained, “meant ‘security of a free polity’….” Put another way, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure the state of freedom in the United States, a goal directly at odds with the ISACS standards. “For over a decade, the U.N. promised they’d never try to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, or restrict lawful civilian arms ownership, or interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States. This ISACS document proves those were empty promises and what their real agenda is.” — Wayne LaPierre

As the bumper sticker says, “The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting.” But as the foreign dictatorships and tyrannical governments of the United Nations know, allowing their subjects to be armed would make as much sense as for Colonel Sanders to hand over pitchforks to his chickens.

Yet even if you want to own a gun for the reasons the U.N. defines as “legitimate,” you’d have to jump through plenty of hoops to get a government-issued license. As ISACS 03.30 decrees, “The burden should be on applicants for a small arms license to prove their eligibility.”

What does that mean? For one thing, it means you’d have to prove your “suitability” to own a gun “in the form of one or more references from responsible members of society who know [you], e.g. a police officer, doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.”

If you want to own a firearm for sport shooting, it means you’d have to prove, to the government’s satisfaction, that you participate in sport shooting.

If you want to own a firearm for self-defense, you’d have to prove a legitimate “need”—which means the right to carry would effectively cease to exist. After all, before “shall-issue” Right-to-Carry laws were adopted by dozens of states, requiring proof of “need” was how most states denied citizens their concealed-carry permits (and how some states continue to do so to this day).

And forget about teaching your kids or friends to shoot. Under the ISACS 03.30 “standards,” they’d have to obtain a license to own a gun before even using a gun. And to prove their “eligibility” for that license, they’d have to prove they were already active in using the gun that they hadn’t yet even touched. It’s like that bitter joke known by entry-level job applicants everywhere: You need experience to get a job—but you can’t get that experience until you get a job; Catch-22.

In fact, the ISACS “standards” include nearly every tried-and-failed gun-control scheme of the past 50 years.

They require a waiting period “of at least seven days between the submission of a license application and the granting of a license to acquire and possess a small arm.” Never mind that waiting periods have never been shown to reduce violent crime. And never mind that waiting periods can leave innocent citizens who need protection the most—battered wives and stalking victims, for example—utterly defenseless.

They impose limits “on the number of small arms that an individual civilian may … possess at any one time; and … acquire during a specific period of time.” They require that a firearms license “shall have an expiry date after which it is no longer valid … (e.g., 3 to 5 years).”

They mandate that your firearms must be unloaded and locked under “safe storage” laws—making them useless for defending yourself and your family in your own home—and call for “periodic inspections of premises” to ensure your firearms are properly secured in your home.

And last but by no means least, they call for national registration of firearms, including their so-called “ballistic signatures,” in “an official database,” giving computer hackers, axe-grinding journalists, criminals and government gun-grabbers your name, address and a list of the guns you own to use as they see fit. Yet even if you want to own a gun for the reasons the U.N. defines as “legitimate,” you’d have to jump through plenty of hoops to get a government-issued license.

And since the ISACS “standards” seek to ban weapons supposedly “configured for military use” and any magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, it’s not hard to imagine what they have in mind: the same sweeping bans on so-called “assault weapons” that gun grabbers have pushed within the United States for decades.

How Obama Could Ban Your Guns Without Passing Any Law

As former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July regarding the ATT, “Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails.”

In other words, what anti-gun politicians can’t achieve in the U.S. through the legislative process, with its checks and balances and the safeguards built into the U.S. Constitution, they’ll impose through the international treaty process.

“It’s the same thing we’ve seen for years in Washington,” said NRA’s LaPierre. “If you’re sick and tired of politicians and bureaucrats saying one thing, and then doing just the opposite, then get ready for a fight. Because the same sickening arrogance, abuse of power and contempt for the rule of law that we’ve seen for years in Washington is now on steroids at the United Nations.

“If they want a fight over the fundamental rights of free people, then they’ve come to the right place,” LaPierre continued. “Because the NRA knows how to fight and knows how to win—to defend the God-given, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that make America a unique and precious nation in the history of the world.”

[American Patriot]

You know, I've been working on a new Linux load on the system the last couple of days. I thought I'd load Mint (finally)... but I've been offline the last couple of days because of it.

Anyway, I haven't paid a lot of attention to much because I've had a bad cold (coming back to children, who are the most germ-ridden vermin on the planet) and working on the computer so I can only say one thing about this UN shit.


Yawn.....

Fuck them. Fuck Obama. Fuck the ATF. Fuck the US Government.

I've had it with all their bullshit.

I don't even care any more. If I die holding on to my guns, I will die a free man. I will not die a slave.

[vector7]

Mitch McConnell Moves to Grant the President Unlimited War Powers with No Expiration Date

Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Jan 22, 2016 at 12:34 pm


The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.

– From George Orwell’s, 1984

This morning, I came across an extremely important story with tremendous long-term negative implications for freedom in these United States. It relates to the fact that the always shady Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is moving to fast track an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) for the President that would allow for unrestricted warfare against ISIS. There would be no time or geographic restrictions on this authorization. Rather than being a favor to President Obama, this is primarily a means to ensure that whoever takes control in 2017 receives a blank check for unrestrained militarism with no expiration date. This is terrifying.

Before I get into the issue at hand, some background is necessary. Many legal scholars, and indeed, even many members of Congress have admitted that Obama’s war against ISIS is illegal and unconstitutional. One of the best articles I’ve read on why this is the case, was published in the New York Times in 2014, which I covered in the post, Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here are a few excerpts:

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

It’s been almost two years since that Op-ed was written, and Obama is still carrying out his illegal war on ISIS with barely a peep from our incredibly corrupt and useless Congress. Indeed, the only thing Congress is scheming to do is to ensure the next President receives a blank check for perpetual war.


Read More:

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/01...piration-date/

[vector7]

Obama Proposes $10/Barrel Oil Tax To Fund Government Transportation Spending


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2016 15:25 -0500

"It's a supply issue", "No, it's a demand issue" - when it comes to the cause for plunging oil prices, the two camps will surely never agree on just what is causing it.

Luckily, Obama may provide just the tiebreaker.

Moments ago, Politico reported that in his final budget, Obama is set to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” which will be funded by a $10/barrel tax on oil.

Punishment for evil oil companies, you say? Not so fast: any government tax would be immediately passed on to those US consumers who recently had to take out a second-lien subprime loan to finish funding the purchase of that brand new Ford F-150 truck.
From Politico:

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

In other words, while there may be excess supply of about 3 million barrels daily according to Saudi Arabia, suddenly demand is about to fall off a cliff as the price of oil surges thanks to Obama's latest brilliant intervention in the "free market", one which would result in a roughly 30% tax to E&P companies and a 25 cent jump in the price of a gallon of gas.

The good news: it won't pass...

There is no real chance that the Republican-controlled Congress will embrace Obama’s grand vision of climate-friendly mobility in an election year—especially after passing a long-stalled bipartisan highway bill just last year—and his aides acknowledge it’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation about the future of transportation.

... at least not in the current Congress. But what about next time?

By raising the specter of new taxes on fossil fuels, it could create a political quandary for Democrats. The fee could add as much as 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, and even with petroleum prices at historic lows, the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

And there you have it: what so many had expected for so long, was just proposed by the president who hopes to fill the price gap resulting from Saudi efforts to crush US shale producers, by yet another government surcharge, one which will lead to a dramatic drop in demand, and unless something drastically changes on the supply side, lead to an even greater glut in what is already record oil inventory.

But the biggest irony, of course, is that while there clearly is oversupply, what the Fed and other central banks are doing is now enabling their governments to capture every last possible "externality" and collect even more revenue on the back of disastrous monetary policy, policy which created bubbles and provided generous funding to create massive excess capacity and production of record amounts of commodities, such as in this case, oil.

So if by some miracle this tax does pass, and the price of a gallon suddenly spikes by 25 cents even as the world is literally drowning in oil, it's not just Obama's fault: thank Bernanke, and of course Janet, and all their peers who share dinner once every two months at the BIS tower in Basel,

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...on-investments

[vector7]

Obama Wants ‘Billions For Gun Control’ In 2017 Budget

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-2017-budget/

by AWR Hawkins9 Feb 2016144

On February 9 President Obama released his 2017 budget proposal and it contains “billions for gun control.”

Much of this is to fund the various aspects of Obama’s January 5 executive gun controls, which include new FBI personnel to handle:

National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) checks,
more ATF agents,
funding “smart gun” research,
expanding background checks to trusts, etc.

According to The Hill, Tuesday’s budget proposal seeks “$1.3 billion” for the ATF alone. “Thirty-five million” of those dollars would go to funding the new ATF agents in the roles outlined the executive gun controls. Budget monies are also being sought for the “mental health” aspects of Obama’s gun controls–this includes the gun ban for some Social Security beneficiaries, which was co-opted into the list of executive controls.

Republicans criticized the requests for gun control funding, but House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)56% has yet to say whether he actually plans to fight funding the executive controls.

[American Patriot]

NO.

You can not have millions.

You can not have out guns.

If you try to take millions we will take our guns and take you out.

Fuck you.

[vector7]

Armed Social Security Recipients are Now Targeted by Obama

Tim Brown February 10, 2016

If you've got a gun and you receive Social Security, you are now being targeted by the Obama administration.

In the latest stealth effort by the Communist administration, the Social Security Administration is wanting to list the names of those who receive Social Security benefits to the National Instant Check System (NICS) as "prohibited persons." This would effectively ban them from being able to purchase a gun and would target those who already own guns.

It would also be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.

The LA Times has the story:

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."
…
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by 'representative payees.'

The Veterans Administration has been involved in this for years now, as they have sought to disarm our veterans, those who have fought to defend the very rights they are being deprived. My good friend Leon Puissegur seems to have been targeted in such a manner.

Just like the VA, the Social Security Administration would have no judicial oversight, which would mean they would end up violating the Constitutional rights of American citizens under the Second and Fifth Amendments.

We already know that the NICS system is being used to build a database, despite it being against the law to do so.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Being a veteran is not a crime. Being elderly is not a crime. Even being marked as having "subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease" is not a crime. Therefore, people's rights should not be infringed because a mentally ill, criminal usurper thinks they should be.

Any way this criminal administration can think of restricting or confiscating guns, they are looking to do it. Whether it is through the Veterans Administration, more background checks, or putting people on a random no-fly list, they are openly defying God, the people and the Constitution.

What Americans need to keep their eyes on is the simple fact that the united States Constitution does not grant any authority to DC politicians to write law nor impose by executive order the restriction of guns for citizens. Congress doesn't have that authority, the Executive Branch doesn't have that authority and neither does the Judicial Branch. This is a usurpation and always has been because every federal gun law is unconstitutional!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/ar...eted-by-obama/

[American Patriot]

Maybe it;s high time some armed vets and SS folks went in and took down a few of these "offices" full of Nazi fucks?

[vector7]

Obama Administration Deletes Conflict Of Interest Disclosures For Top Bureaucrats [VIDEO]

Conflict of interest disclosure reports filed by top federal officials were removed from public view by the Obama administration in recent months, a move that government transparency and accountability advocates condemn as a major setback.

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) reports are the primary tool that watchdog journalists, political activists and interested voters can use to guard against presidential appointees using their positions to enrich themselves or others.

For years, the OGE website featured a sortable, searchable list of over 1,000 government appointees, including their names, agencies and titles, and flagging new ones. By clicking on a name, users could easily access multiple disclosures for the appointee, including yearly financial accounting, stock ownership and a letter detailing any agreements surrounding conflicts, such as issues when the individual promises to recuse himself. By January, the list was inexplicably removed, leaving only a search box. That action severely reduced the chance of officials’ finances being scrutinized because it became necessary to know the name of a person and have a reason to want to look up that individual, as opposed to, for example, looking for listings from an agency of interest.

Now, even that capability is gone, along with almost all references to actually seeing the disclosures. Thousands of PDFs have also been deleted, leaving dead links.

OGE referred press calls to Seth Jaffe, who didn’t respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s query placed on Monday.

“This is a problem,” Daniel Schuman, a policy analyst at the liberal group Demand Progress, told TheDCNF. “They should put it back. It’s very odd there’s no explanation.”

John Wonderlich, head of the transparency group the Sunlight Foundation, called it a “big step backward,” saying “the administration should be demonstrating how digital disclosure should strengthen our accountability systems, and creating barriers to access is the opposite of progress.”

Previously, Sunlight had praised President Barack Obama, who had pledged at the outset of his first term in the Oval Office to have the “most transparent [administration] in history.”

The OGE documents also include “ethics waivers,” documents that showed despite Obama making pledges such as not to appoint former lobbyists, this was frequently done.
Thanks to the disclosures, the public recently learned that Secretary of State John Kerry has millions invested in offshore tax havens. The disclosures also showed that Medicare chief Andy Slavitt took actions relating to firms he had financial ties to, and that he got a waiver to do so.

OGE’s role as an independent entity is important in serving as a check against self-interested departments. The disclosures showed that the Medicare agency lied about Slavitt getting preferential tax treatment.

They also showed a former union lawyer who was appointed to head a labor relations agency steered lucrative contracts to his old law firm despite signing an agreement saying he “will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which Bredhoff & Kaiser is a party or represents a party unless I am first authorized.”

The site’s menu now says nothing about viewing disclosures, but buried several clicks in to a section called “Media” allows you to fill out a form requiring highly specific information about a person and the disclosure you are requesting.

When TheDCNF called to inquire about the change, the form had to be sent in via snail mail. Soon after the call, they added a cumbersome online form that was submitted to an employee who supposedly would send the documents several days later.

TheDCNF filled out the form and several days later, got rejected without explanation.

“The records that you requested are not maintained in the Office of Government Ethics. Please contact the employing agency/agencies for these records,” Irene Houston wrote.

[vector7]

Barack Obama Warns Americans ‘To Be Prepared For A Disaster’
By Michael Snyder, on June 2nd, 2016



When Barack Obama speaks to the public, it is very rare that he does so without a specific purpose in mind. So why is he urging Americans “to be prepared for a disaster” all of a sudden? On May 31, Obama took time out of his extremely busy schedule to deliver an address at the FEMA National Response Coordination Center in Washington. During his speech, he stressed that every American is responsible for preparing for disasters, and that includes “having an evacuation plan” and “having a fully stocked disaster supply kit”. These are basic steps that I have been encouraging people to do for years, but if they won’t listen to me, perhaps they will listen to the man currently residing in the White House. The following excerpt from Obama’s speech comes directly from the official White House website…

One of the things that we have learned over the course of the last seven and a half years is that government plays a vital role, but it is every citizen’s responsibility to be prepared for a disaster. And that means taking proactive steps, like having an evacuation plan, having a fully stocked disaster supply kit. If your local authorities ask you to evacuate, you have to do it. Don’t wait.

This speech was timed to coincide with the beginning of the hurricane season, although hurricanes have not posed much of a threat lately.

In fact, a major hurricane has not made landfall in the United States for 127 straight months.

But without a doubt, we all need to be preparing for disaster. Hurricanes can create a short-term emergency that can last for a few days, but there are other threats that could create a major emergency that could potentially last for an extended period of time. That list of potential threats includes a major volcanic eruption, a natural or engineered pandemic, a west coast earthquake, a New Madrid earthquake, a tsunami on either the east or west coasts, a meteor impact, Islamic terror, war, an EMP burst that takes down the power grid, cyberwarfare, economic collapse, and civil unrest resulting in the imposition of martial law.

Of course the items that I just mentioned are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in different scenarios we could actually see multiple events happen in rapid succession.

It is interesting to note that during his speech Barack Obama also noted that the American people seem to have become very complacent about getting prepared…

And what we’ve been seeing is some public complacency slipping in; a large portion of people not having preparedness kits, not having evacuation plans.

This is exactly what I have been noticing as well. There appears to be a tremendous amount of apathy out there, and relatively few people really seem to feel much urgency to get prepared these days.

My contacts in the emergency preparedness industry have been telling me that sales are way down right now. There was a big peak last fall, but since then it is like interest in prepping has just fallen off the map.

Ultimately, those companies are going to be okay because interest will pick back up shortly as global events begin to spiral completely out of control. However, of much greater concern is the fact that people have not been using this period of relative calm constructively.

Just like we have seen in Venezuela, time to prepare eventually runs out. And someday there will be millions of parents that are absolutely horrified when their children come to them crying out for food and they don’t have anything to give to them because they didn’t heed the warnings and they didn’t get prepared.

When that day arrives, many of those families may be forced to turn to whatever help the government is offering at the time.

One more thing that I found particularly noteworthy about Obama’s speech was that he said that there is now “a FEMA app” that can direct you to the nearest “FEMA shelter” in the event of a major emergency.

If you need information about how to put together an evacuation plan, how to put together a disaster preparedness kit, as Craig said, we’ve got an app for everything now. We have a FEMA app in English and in Spanish to help you prepare your family for a disaster. You can update the National Weather Service alerts. You can get safety tips for more than 20 kinds of hazards. It provides you directions to nearby shelters.

Could you envision yourself and your family having to take refuge in a “FEMA shelter” someday?

If not, you should do what you can to get prepared now. Over the next couple of days, my wife and I will be releasing a couple of new videos about preparation on our YouTube channel. I hope that many of you will check them out.

Unlike Venezuela, it looks like we may still have a little bit more time to prepare for what is ahead. Some people will relax and use this time to party, but those that are wise will work diligently and will do what they can to get ready for the exceedingly challenging times that are rapidly approaching.

Hopefully you are listening to the warnings and are heeding what the watchmen are saying.

If not, the consequences for what will happen to you and your family will ultimately be on your own hands.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...for-a-disaster

[Ryan Ruck]

He was elected almost 8 years ago. A little late on that warning...

[American Patriot]

lol Ryan!

I've been seeing stuff about this on FB and other places.

It worries me though, because if Obama is warning about "disaster" something else is up and he's giving the public a heads up to be prepared.

When a Marxist is warning mostly free people to be worried about something, there is something of a clear and present danger afoot.

[vector7]

Obama may be a rare ex-president who stays in Washington

By Scott Wilson November 29, 2013

Throughout his time in office, President Obama has opened many outside-the-Beltway speeches with a suggestion that he, too, feels like an outsider in the nation’s baffling, frustrating capital city. He shouts to the audience about how good it is to be wherever he is that day — Cleveland, Miami, San Francisco. Then he takes pokes at the town where great success in his chosen profession has brought him.

“It is good to be out of Washington,” he often says — a line that, in good times and in bad, always generates warm, sympathetic applause.

Changing Washington may not have come off as Obama promised. But for the president and his supporters, the city has been an object of contempt they can believe in.

Now, though, Obama has raised the possibility that he might remain a resident of the capital after his lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. expires in January 2017.

In an interview this week with Barbara Walters of ABC News, Obama and the first lady, Michelle, said they may live in Washington beyond their time in the White House to allow their younger daughter, Sasha, to graduate from Sidwell Friends School.

Sasha would be a high school sophomore at the end of the president’s second term, giving the family a couple years to enjoy, or endure, Washington as private citizens.

“We gotta make sure that she’s doing well . . . until she goes off to college,” Obama told Walters, according to an advance transcript of the interview, which aired Friday night. “Sasha will have a big say in where we are.”

For a couple who celebrate the city of Chicago as often as they skewer Washington’s nasty political culture, the suggestion that they may stick around past the constitutionally mandated time is surprising. And it highlights the reality that despite the cloistered and well-supported lifestyle of the American presidency, the Obamas are in some ways working parents who face a set of decisions not unfamiliar to others their age.

Obama would be the first former president to remain in Washington post-presidency since the dying Woodrow Wilson more than nine decades ago. A former president is an easy political target, and to stay in Washington is to be a close-range one as well. The journey from leader of the free world to the person most to blame for the early problems of a new administration is as short as a walk across Lafayette Square.

Most find it best to be far from the scene of the alleged crimes when the accusations start flying. George W. Bush, who moved back to Texas and began painting, was relatively well-served by that distance when Obama pointed often to his predecessor as the cause of the economic and fiscal problems his administration faced early on.

Sticking around is “a terrible idea and I can’t imagine it will last very long,” said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. “Once you’re in Washington you are somehow connected to every problem that your predecessor is going to be confronting. And you will be asked to say something each time your name comes up, given that you will have reporters camping out on your doorstep.”

This, in part, is the reason many former presidents don’t flee just Washington, but public life entirely.

Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson vanished onto beloved ranches in California and Texas, the former to enjoy his last years in a pretty valley north of Santa Barbara and the latter to lament what might have been if not for Vietnam.

Both men were getting on in years by the time they left office. Younger occupants such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton remained active on the world stage after their presidencies rather than in the tiny arena that is official Washington.

As for the Obamas, “they are still trying to figure it out,” said Josh Earnest, the White House principal deputy press secretary. “It is certainly something they have been thinking about, and that is evident in the answer they gave.”

Earnest said the decision will likely be made late in the president’s term and pivot largely on Sasha, who is 12 and in seventh grade. Malia, 15, a high school sophomore, will have left for college by then.

“I think it is school and Sasha being able to keep her social group as much as possible — that is what is most important to them,” Earnest said.

The Obamas have kept their home in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, staying there on some visits home. Their departure was always meant to be temporary. As Valerie Jarrett, a close family friend and senior adviser to Obama, said as the family decamped for Washington, “It is really not goodbye.

Rather, Chicago will say, ‘See you soon.’ ”

Michelle Obama, if not her husband, has raised the prospect of picking up post-White House life somewhere other than the city where she grew up. Last year, she said on two occasions that the family may not return to Chicago, as much as she loves the city.

“While I like going back to Chicago — I like to see the lake — this is home now because this is where we’ve built our lives,” Michelle Obama told USA Today in May 2012. “And when it’s time to leave, we’ll build it somewhere else.”

The Obamas’ frequent knocks of Washington have focused on the politics — the K Street money and the 24-hour punditry, the partisanship on Capitol Hill and the culture of point-scoring, which the president and his predecessors have said comes at the expense of the country.

Obama’s message about the city: Hate the players, not the playground. But how much Obama and his family like Washington as a place is a bit of a mystery .

At the start of Obama’s presidency, the first couple dined out with some frequency, not only on special occasions such as anniversaries but also for regular date nights. The Obamas seemed to embrace the city as much as the city embraced the new administration in the afterglow of a historic election.

Those nights out have become less common, and off-hours Obama now leaves the White House most regularly for the fairway-to-green seclusion of 18 holes at Andrews Air Force Base.

So what would private life in Washington look like for an ex-president.

That is hard to say, given that the most recent precedent is Wilson, who remained in town after his presidency ended in 1921 largely because he was suffering the debilitating aftereffects of a stroke.

One unknown is what Obama, who will be 55 when he leaves office, will want to do after his presidency.

There are law schools where he could pick up his teaching career — a vocation he says has informed his presidency — and any private home the couple may choose would certainly have a place for him to hide away and write the inevitable memoir of his presidency, even if his presidential records and library would be somewhere else.

That work could take the couple through Sasha’s graduation — and then, perhaps, far from a city traditionally full of transients who find it hard to love it.

“It’s just not a very congenial place to hang out,” Hess said.

[vector7]

An Obama Third Term Presidency?

15.06.2016
Alexander Azadgan

Politics

North America




Lately, there has been a generated interest (both here in the US as well as abroad) as to the legal basis for a possible Obama third-term presidency in case of an imminent war in the form of another 9/ 11 terroristic style attack, albeit not as extensive, that would grant a temporary suspension in the November presidential elections.

Some sources for such extrapolations are right wing elements within the US intelligentsia apparatus. While others are independent sources and intelligent insiders. There are also many foreign intelligentsia insiders with the same keen interest in this topic - all relatively reliable with an obvious twist of conspiracy mindfulness.

As such, the truth becomes even harder to decipher amidst all these rumors and innuendos, false alarms and quite possibly real alarms.
It's hard to accurately forecast who will be installed (never elected) into the White House in November.

What is crystal clear is the fact that it is now quite obvious to everyone that Wall Street [as well as PNAC conspirators] desire a continuation of the Obama regime via the Hillary Clinton "candidacy", because to them, she is the safer option, as in, more predictable, more manageable, more controllable. Wall Street is compulsively obsessed with predictability and loathes the opposite although the fiasco that they created which resulted in the 2008 economic near-collapse may hint otherwise. It is not. Make no mistake.

On the other hand, the usual utter stupidity, profound prejudices, and the basic overall ignorance of the 30 and sometimes up to 51% of the American electorate can never, ever be under-estimated, especially when the fear element & nefarious tactics such as false flag operations are repeatedly being used, as we are all witnessing, in this post 9/11 world.

These evil tactics have not only been quite apparent throughout human history, but we have seen an unprecedented concentration of their usage ever since the 9/11 staged events which was a pre-conceived recipe for the sustainability of the first Bush term (2000-2004) and then his "re-election" term, 2004-2008.

By referring to these evil tactics in human history, one only needs to site a few examples in the 20th century alone:

1) The sinking of Lusitania in 1915 as a prelude for Washington's entry in WWI.

2) Hitler's burning of the German Reichstag in 1933 in order to blame [and eliminate] his political opponents on the left, once and for all, during the 12 years duration of the Third Reich.

3) The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that were used as a pretext for Washington's entry into WWII which many analysts at the time were ferociously forewarning to the deaf ears of the FDR's administration.

4) The Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" which was used as a pretext for Washington's war in Vietnam.

And last but not the least,

5) The 9/11 attacks which have intentionally lead into a seemingly never-ending action-reaction loop-hole cycle to justify Washington's so-called "War on Terror" which in actuality is a war OF terror. All this in order to create havoc in an already tinder box chaotic part of the world we call the Middle East - for fossil fuel as well as for ideological and by that I mean eschatological purposes.

All these events, especially the latter, had a crafty, well-designed, cumulative, calculative, pre-planned, intended consequence of falsely manufacturing the American people's consent by more-or-less hypnotizing them into otherwise false and misperceived fears.

But back to the earlier point in regards to a possible Obama coup d’état in the context of a Trump verses Clinton so-called race, all these fear factors, in combination with the 2008 economic collapse which has never really gone away (except for the top 1% at the expense of the 99%), along with expensive and idiotically adventurist wars of the 2000 decade, not just in the Middle East, but at the doorsteps of Russia [via Ukraine] have all created an albeit already existing profound dislike [and distrust] for Hillary Clinton (because she was very much involved in the wrong decision makings, be it the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq all the way down to the overthrow of Muamar Kaddafi in 2011 and the subsequent inside job assassination of Ambassador Stevens in that whole mess called Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton's involvement in all these events, and whatsmore her suspicious and evasive behavior and intentional lack of transparency, i.e. the deletion of thousands of emails via her personal computer server at home during her direct and first-hand Libya regime change activities, all these factors along with her usual arrogant and combative behavior have contributed [and exacerbated] a deep dislike and distrust of a rather large segment of the American electorate - Democrats and Republicans alike, hence the Bernie Sanders phenomenon, albeit unfortunately now in its final stage.

All this has [and still is] fueling Donald Trump's campaign, and up to now actually giving this otherwise reality show clown a political platform that has devolved him (of course by his own vanity and design but on a much grander playing field) into a toxic and dangerous political demagogue.

All this leads us to the earlier right-wing speculations of a possible [but in my opinion unlikely] continuation of the Obama regime, if the power structures in Wall Street (and in Washington) feel threatened by what could seem like an imminent Trump takeover, if that be the case in the next few months to come.

These groups of analysts argue that the Washingtonian Neo-con/ Neo-lib cabal could manufacture another 9/11 style false flag operation, albeit nothing as extensive as 9/11, in order to sustain the Obama regime under the disguise of a "national emergency".

They further extrapolate that the broad American perceptions, sentiments, and fears have already been [and still are] being swayed, shaped, and massaged into accepting this possible scenario through a series of all these false flag, inside job operations starting with 9/11 itself down to UK's 7/7/05 event, and all the way down to the creation and ongoing savagery of ISIS agents in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, and now this horrible deed in Orlando, Florida.

Although many argue that this is an unlikely scenario, it is one worth exploring not just in this presidential cycle but in the next ones to follow, especially in spite of the highly volatile and unpredictable world conditions that we are currently living in - one in which Washington's and NATO's desperate acts of aggression is becoming more and more apparent as well as transparent to everyone with a clear and sober mind with relative sanity.

[vector7]

Obama implies he’ll be more vocal about issues after he leaves office



September 30, 2016 10:30 AM

Many U.S. presidents, upon leaving office, try to fade from the national spotlight and live the rest of their lives as private citizens.

President Barack Obama implied in a Vanity Fair interview that he might choose to go a different route.

In the interview conducted by presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Obama talked about his use of the term “radical Islam,” how he would miss Air Force One and his desire to make the world better.

Then there’s a short bit where he hints at what life after the presidency might look like for him, a relatively young 55 years old as he exits the office. He says there are some things he suspects he’ll be able to accomplish better after being president.

“Having had this office has given me this incredible perch from which to see how the world works. The power of the office is unique and it is a humbling privilege,” Obama said. “With that power, however, also comes a whole host of institutional constraints. There are things I cannot say. There are things that...”

“You mean now, but you will later,” Goodwin prods.

“That I cannot say, not out of any political concerns, but out of prudential concerns of the office,” Obama continues. “There are institutional obligations I have to carry out that are important for a president of the United States to carry out, but may not always align with what I think would move the ball down the field on the issues that I care most deeply about.”

Obama has spoken passionately about many subjects as president, one being police violence against black men. He said after the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida that “we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys.”

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” Obama said. “I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.”

Once Obama leaves office, and those “institutional constraints” have lifted, we’ll see what issues he decides to address.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...#storylink=cpy

Since O references Trayvon Martin in this article:

Parents of Trayvon Martin have book coming in January 2017
The parents of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen fatally shot in 2012 by a neighborhood watch volunteer, have a book coming out in January

Sept. 28, 2016, at 1:16 p.m.
Spiegel & Grau announced Wednesday that it will release "Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin," by Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. The book, narrated alternately by the mother and father, will tell of Trayvon's "life and struggles, his tragic death, and the transformative movement for justice" that he inspired, according to Spiegel & Grau, a Penguin Random House imprint. Martin's parents also will share the "grief and confusion" they have endured and how they contended with an "indifferent system" as they struggled to make sense of what happened.
http://www.usnews.com/news/entertain...n-january-2017

[Ryan Ruck]

Not unless he steals a couple of the WH teleprompters.

[vector7]

[American Patriot]

I wish someone would shove a hammer down his throat