Your Wake Up Call – Gun Control is an Assault on God Given Rights

After every mass shooting, the Left’s (I use this term to cover ALL of those who seek to destroy America) knee jerk reaction is to attempt to pass gun control legislation, even though most rational people realize that no laws will EVER prevent evil people from getting firearms or anything else and doing evil deeds. Needless to say, just as soon as the Left begin their assault, Patriotic Americans come back fighting (I proudly stand with these Patriots). Our prime weapon against this attack is the Constitution and the particularly the Second Amendment. We will reinforcement our arguments with quotes from the Founding Fathers and others.

As the gun control debate rages, some of those Patriots who oppose gun control fail to look back at the Declaration of Independence and when they do, many, if not all, will remember and can quote those immoral words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (inalienable) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”. However, it is the words that proceed these, “…the separate and equal station to which theLaws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them….”, that I feel many fail to remember and I feel this is the fundamental reason that ANY argument for Gun Control is fundamentally flawed.

The Laws of Nature or more specifically Natural Law is that “body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law” or as Emmerich de Vattel would explain in The Law of Nations (French: Le droit des gens) 1758, “that liberty and independence that belongs to man by his very nature, and that they cannot be taken from him without his consent.” What are these principles that are derived from nature and binds to human society in general, America in particular?

In order to avoid a long drawn out discussion of the various works of Gentilis, Grotius, Pufen, and Burlamaqui concerning Natural Law or the Natural Rights of Man, I will refer to what John Locke wrote in his Two Treaties (1690), “the right to life, liberty and property” or as Thomas Jefferson brilliantly wrote in America’s Declaration of Independence, “..unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (good fortune : prosperity) …” Let’s take a look at these three basic God or if you prefer Nature’s God given Natural Rights, as defined by Locke and Jefferson, are the reasons that any attempt for any type of gun control is not only a violation of our Constitutional rights but our GOD given rights.

The Right to Life

This basic right is / maybe self explanatory, but we must/should also include personal security. All human beings (including those still in the womb) have the God given right NOT to be killed, NOT to be injured or NOT to be abused. This is the MAIN reason most, if not all, of us own and carry a gun.

As many gun control advocates are fond of saying, “No one needs an “assault weapon” or a multi round magazine for self defense (or hunting).” The first response from anyone who is against gun control, should be, “How do YOU know exactly what type of weapon I need to defend myself, my family or if necessary my neighbor?” Someone also needs to remind those on the Left that every state and even the federal government have self defense laws and these laws provide for using any and all means necessary to protect one’s self and family. The Left also needs to be reminded that most, if not all, LEGAL gun owner is very familiar with the laws of self defense in their home state. Isn’t it strange that none of these self defense laws specify what type of weapon a person should use to defend themselves, i.e. none of them say, “if you are being attacked by a person with a knife, you have to defend yourself with a knife.”

The Right to Liberty

This right is/was explained by James Madison when he presented the first thirteen amendments to the Constitution during the meeting of the first Congress, ten of which is now known as the Bill of Rights. Maybe they should be referred to as the Bill of God given rights or the Bill of Natural Rights. (Please pay attention to the wording in “Fourthly. That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4″)


Among these Natural rights is the right to worship God and practice one’s religion or not practice or worship.

Man also has the right to move freely, without government permission, to go where one chooses provided they do not violate another person’s rights.

Man has the right to assemble peaceably and the right to express or publish his opinions, and if possible to communicate those opinions to the world.

Man has the right be secure in his home which includes his effects and personal papers, this liberty also includes freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is another Constitutional and Natural right that the Left is attempting to “backdoor” with legislation for insurance requirements for gun owners, gun registrations and any other “laws” that will require the government to know who owns a gun or how many are owned.

Man has the right to enjoy privacy in all matters, which includes the privacy of a person’s medical records. This does include what is said to one’s doctor in the course of medical treatment, INCLUDING any treatment which may involve discussions concerning mental problems. If a person does have a problem, the idea that what is said in confidential to a doctor would be relayed to the government could prevent that person from seeking help for even a minor problem. This is something that the “Dear Leader” forgot when he issued his Executive Actions on gun violence, the Doctor – Patient privilege.

In order for Man to protect and defend the above list of Natural and Constitutional right to liberty, Man has the right to purchase, keep and bear arms. Once again the Left needs to be reminded that it is the person’s RIGHT, not the government’s, to decide what type of weapon or the number of rounds they need to defend this RIGHT.

The Right to Property [Jefferson’s “Happiness” (good fortune: prosperity)

Man has the right to a private home and personal property within that home. The idea that a man’s home (residence) is his castle dates back to 1644, therefore, a Man’s residence may not be entered or his processions taken or used without his permission.

Man has the right to buy and own the tools required to earn a livelihood. He has the right to use those tools to achieve happiness (good fortune: prosperity).

Once again, in order for Man to defend and protect his home, his processions and his tools, Man has the right to purchase any gun he feels is suitable for his personal and if required his community’s defense. Once again, I will remind the Left that all states have laws that allow a home owner to defend his “castle” and none of those laws say how he can defend or protect his property.

The Left needs to be reminded that Natural Laws is not just some philosophy thought up and written about by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson many years ago, but is a potent and valuable set of laws that will and should be forcibly used to restrain the lawless and arrogant over reaching government, of course this is what the Left is afraid of. Yet, Natural Law is in existence today thanks to their favorite organization, the United Nations.

Before the LEFT even begins to argue against the concept of Natural Rights, they better read what the U.N. said in its, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (10 December 1948) and pay particular attention to The Preamble and special attention to Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Is this not directly from John Locke?

I realize that the Left’s assault on guns will continue on and they will attack in every way they can, BUT we Patriots have to remind them that we have the God given right to own any weapon we are capable of owning and NO government has any right to tell a free people by what method we should defend our Natural Rights.

For All Who Are Clamoring for Constitutional Convention, Forewarned is Forearmed

As George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address, "to resist the spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution, however specious the pretexts"[1]...OM

Obama blamed Founding Fathers’ ‘structural’ design of Congress for gridlock

"The States in their House (Senate) would be a check on sudden and ill-considered action by the House of the People (House of Representatives).[1]...OM"

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate. (For a so called, Constitutional scholar how little does BH0 know about the history of the Constitution he swore to "...preserve, protect and defend..." The Senate was originally designed to be a House of the States and "...shall be composed of two Senators from each state, CHOSEN by the Legislature there of...Art 1, Sec 3 emasculated by the 17th Amendment[1]...OM)

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population. (The House of Representatives is the HOUSE of the PEOPLE, elected by the PEOPLE as defined in Art 1, Sec 2 of Constitution and the House of Representatives is the people's check on the POTUS. The Senate was suppose to be the STATES check on the POTUS as explained in Federalist 62, "It is recommended by the double advantage favoring a SELECT appointment, and of giving to the STATE GOVERNMENT such an agency in the formation of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as a must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems"...OM)

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. (That is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up Congress consisting of a HOUSE and SENATE because as much as the Socialist stress that America is a DEMOCRACY it isn't, AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC...OM)

The Founding Fathers decided in the “Great Compromise” in 1787 to apportion House seats based on population and give each state two seats in the Senate regardless of population. The solution was a compromise between large states and small states in a dispute that nearly dissolved the Constitutional Convention.

The president also blamed “demographics” for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats “tend to congregate a little more densely” in cities such as New York and Chicago (Isn't that where most of the welfare handouts go?...OM). He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress.(Because most who believe in original meaning of the Constitution and hard work usually live outside the Democratic controlled urban areas...OM)

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said. (Is that why the House turned over in 2010 and MAYBE there will be a turn of the Senate in 2014?...OM)

He also said Democrats suffer from the “congenital disease” of not voting in midterm elections.

Let's turn once more to the Federalist:

"The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and
numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to
be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the  United States, as well as from the history of other nations."

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32c1xNmwe 

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining The Constitution, A History of a Lawless Government, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1950. (Thomas Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)

They May Call Themselves Progressives, I Call Them American Communists

Since Obama began his campaign and after his election news people, conservatives and various “talking heads” have thrown around the terms, labels if you will, Socialists, Communists and of course Progressives.

There have been articles, blog postings, etc. dealing with Progressives and the Progressive agenda and its history. Yet no one has really looked or written about the relationship between Progressivism and Socialism. Yes, I am neglecting Communism because history has shown that though there may be some similarities in goals, the means of achieving them are entirely different.

In fact, recently I posted an article concerning possible Socialist Progressive presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's eleven commandments of progressivism and compared it to the Socialist agenda from 1908 Socialist Party Platform and Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto). But like all speeches by Socialists Progressives, they don't always tell the real story.

Now I will good further in depth and attempt to enlighten those who don't know that when Progressives talk about their agenda, they are REALLY talking about a Socialist Agenda.

In the following I am going to use two main sources, Center for American Progress (CAP), The Progressive Tradition in American Politics, Part 2 and the Socialist Party of America Platform of 1908 as found beginning page 373 of the History of Socialism in America by Morris Hillquit, 1910. 

Other sources will be noted as required.

The format will be Progressive reforms in bold print, followed by the what the 1908 Socialist Party platform had to say on the same subject in italic with Editor's Note in bold as needed. So open your mind and look at what actually is the Socialists agenda that has been put in place by the so-called Progressives.

The eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek – 1908 Shortening the workday in keeping with the increased productiveness of machinery and securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and a half in each week.

Worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents – 1908 Abolishing official charity and substituting in its place compulsory insurance against unemployment, illness, accident, invalidism, old age and death.

Unemployment insurance – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children – 1908 See above on Worker's compensation.

Prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitation – 1908 Forbidding the employment of children under sixteen years of age and forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of child labor.

The legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not directly address this subject, it does state, The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take such other measures within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class. Also if one researches the forming of the various labor unions though out American history you will find that a majority of those founders were socialist. 

The constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination of formal discrimination for women and minorities – 1908 Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, and we pledge ourselves to engage in an active campaign in that direction.

The graduated income and inheritance tax – 1908 The extension of inheritance taxes, graduated in proportion to the amount of the bequests and to the nearness of kin and a graduated income tax. Editor's note: This is also addressed in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Manifesto of the Communists Party (Manifesto) of which Engels wrote in the Preface of the 1888 Edition: “Yet, when it [sic The Manifesto of the Communist Party] was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support.”

Protections against contaminated food and medicines – 1908 The enactment of further measures for general education and for the conservation of health. The bureau of education to be made a department. The creation of a department of public health.

Hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, and national parks – 1908 The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain.

National infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, bridges and roads, and the Internet – 1908 The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.

Minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor – 1908 The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover [sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour [sic] work-day and at the prevailing union wages.” (Does this sound at all familiar?...OM)

Public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill – Editor's note: Although the 1908 Socialist Party Platform does not address this, I once again draw your attention to the Manifesto, “Free education for all children in public schools.”

National supervision of banks and the creation of a flexible national currency – Editor's note: Again one must draw their attention to the Manifesto, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Can anyone say Federal Reserve?)

Federal insurance of bank deposits – Editor's note: Please see above.

Bans on speculative banking practices – Editor's note: Please see above.

The Progressive reforms that were not directly mentioned in neither the 1908 Socialist Party Platform nor the Manifesto:

Anti-monopoly and anti-competitive regulations of corporations

Direct elections of U.S. senators, although the 1908 platform does mention abolishing the senate.

Direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states.

Civil service tests to replace political patronage

Regulation of the securities industry although by stretching the meaning of the Manifesto's, Centralisation [sic] of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly this could fall into part of the Socialist agenda.

Refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners.

Considering that sixteen (maybe 17) out of the twenty one or 76% (81%) of the Progressive reforms that the Center for American Progress brags about can be traced directly to the Socialist Party and/or the Manifest of the Communist Party.

I will allow you the reader to draw your own conclusion that when Democrats call themselves Progressives, they are actually American Communists using a name that won't scare the sheeple or actually show their true agenda and the media both conservative gleefully goes along.

Finally consider what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, a former socialist who later supported Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy, said of the 1960 Democratic platform: “That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM

Special thanks to Igor for his assistance and editing.

Let me know what you think.

Semper Fi

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate

NOTICE: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ ALL THREE PARTS OF SERIES

Many of you know that “The Hour of the Wolf” is when I do my “best” thinking and writing, others will say its when I do my best stinking thinking and writing.

I'll let you be the judge for I am about to unleash the hell that only a pissed off Marine Gunny is capable of when all else fails not only in blog posts but on twitter as well.

BUT, first things first, with this post, I will no longer spend time defining words, idea, etc. within this or any other post. I will establish a separate page that will list terms and words used in my posts with their meanings and source, and YES there will be history and original sources.

Second, I am going to do something that I have never done, I am going to beg you to OPEN your minds, do as I do as a scientist, look at the facts, evaluate and if necessary reevaluate.

FINALLY, I am going to ask that IF you do not agree, which I'll admit a number of people won't, I want you to feel free to comment, but be fore warned; be prepared to defend it with facts and legitimate sources. IF you begin your comment “talking head” said, I will eat your lunch and then I will answer, but I will push you for the original sources. This will apply to all future and past posts.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's get down and dirty.

“Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.” ... Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Re-evaluation of current situation

For many years, I have ranted and raved that America has become more and more socialistic. I have quoted and documented the actual words from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto), the Platform of the 1908, the Soros run Center for American Progress (CAP) and of course Boo Boo, our current POTUS.

In the process of doing RESEARCH for my various rants and writings I must admit that I have been forced to re-evaluate my conclusions.

America HAS NOT become a socialistic country.

Just as our Founding Fathers used various sources; the Bible, David Hume, John Locke, etc., to establish America; America has “done it its own way”. We went from a group of disorganized colonies under a monarchy to the United States of America united under the unique document called the Constitution.

Americans have always done it our own, quite unique way.

YES, were some mistakes made along the way: but being Americans, we corrected them in most cases without bloodshed. All of which were part of the learning curve.

Unfortunately over the many years, the American people and particularly politicians have forgotten that uniqueness which made America great and began to copy and adapt the movements that began taking place in Europe during the middle 1800's, BUT like everything which made America great, those wishing to bring about this change did it in the unique American way.

They took into consideration that most people would be repulsed by the idea of the use of violence to change the system. After all, the people of America were (are) basically peace loving and would use force only if all else failed, saw the violence in Europe (Revolutions of 1848 and the Commune of 1870) and memories of our own Civil War were still fresh in American's mind.

Even Marx in late 1870, warned the workers of Paris NOT to use violence to overthrow the French capitalistic government and would later say:

“One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

Eventually those in America, who were seeking power, control, as well as change took heed of these words and turned to using crisis, propaganda and most importantly the ballot to began quietly and slowly using these guises to gain power.

The politicians took office, both locally and nationally, and began to pass laws and even allowed non-elected officials to enact regulations that would end up controlling aspects of American life.

Thus the establishment of what would become more acceptable, at the time, and falsely called “Big Government” but in reality should be called American Communism.

I can hear everybody, screaming now, “We are not communistic. We're a free country under a Constitution. We elect our leaders. We did not have a violent revolution that brought in a dictator, Etc.”

Part of these people's thinking is correct.

Yes, we do elect our our “leaders”.

True, we did not have a violent revolution that brought about a dictatorship. Although, under Boo Boo and the SCOTUS it appears that way.

Instead, Americans grew envious, greedy and sadly lazy and elected those on BOTH sides of the aisle who grew the size of government and made more people dependent on the government. A QUIET REVOLUTION, but a revolution nonetheless.

Does that mean we have not become communistic?

Are the American people really free or are we subject to whims of those in Washington who pass laws, or un-elected officials who issue regulations or the courts who interpret and in some cases misinterpret them. In other words, is Government controlling our lives?

“Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas”

Socialism or Communism

“Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist (my emphasis) manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:...” (Fredrick Engels in the Preface of 1888 edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which has served as a basis for the “modern” British, American and the late U.S.S.R publications of this infamous plan.)

Now, unless you do what a friend of mine did when we were discussing a mathematical equation and I showed him the equation in a reference book, he threw the book away and said, “it's wrong”; then there is no reason for you to keep reading, your mind is made up and I shouldn't confuse you with facts.

So, for those that are still with me, when I quote Marx or Engels and they say communist or communism I will ask you to remember Engels, preface and call it socialist or socialism.

Not to know what Communism is, is today simply intellectual laziness.

(Paraphrased from Sidney Webb)

Continued in.....In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

No Chit Sherlock: Where have YOU Been?

Like most Americans who are fighting for the American way of life when I come on line there is one site that always comes up, the Drudge Report.

While scanning the headlines, I came across a link to a story that made me choke on my coffee.

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking at the time and didn't copy the headline for farther use, BUT will attempt to paraphrase from memory, “Schlafly: TPP means Congress abdicates authority”. Now, if I didn't get it exactly right, sorry, I'm sure Drudge or someone will correct me.

Now, in all due respect to Ms Schlafly, who from what I have read is a very smart and talented writer, BUT I must ask her, “No chit Sherlock, where have you been?” Congress (as well as the states) has unconstitutionally been abdicating its authority for over a century and NOW people are complaining.

First things first

Let's take a look at the Constitution, you know the document that is suppose to tell the federal government what it CAN do, as opposed to the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, which tells the federal government what it can not do.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 says:

“...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...”

I fully understand that there is no single man elected to the office of president who does not need advice from “experts” in their fields, except maybe Obama, to govern this great country. But does this clause mean that a department within executive branch can control by regulations, NOT laws passed by congress, commerce and just about all aspects of American's freedom and life.

So what did/does congress do instead doing their duty as defined by the Constitution, they unconstitutionally turn their “powers” over to the executive branch by either passing laws or establishing cabinet posts.

Antiquities Act of 1906

This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

The key word is owned, did or has the Federal government paid any state or did any state's legislature give its consent for this land to be taken or was it seized on the whim of the President with consent of congress in order to give federal government control over mineral, including oil and gas, exploration and production? As stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

“...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...” (My emphasis)

Or was this an early attempt for the “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (Page 26) or maybe “The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.” (Page 376).

Federal Communication Commission

Take a look at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which clearly says:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Once again people need to ask, does this clause say that congress can abdicate this power to the executive branch?

As with the Antiquities Act of 1906, congress willfully violated the Constitution to establish the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1934 to take over the duties that were handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” by working towards “six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security.”

The key words, in my opinion, is regulate interstate. Is this NOT the responsibility of Congress or is this a subtle way to establish “The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.” (Page 376)

There are some who will say, “This was passed under FDR and was needed because of the 'Depression'.”

Would someone please explain to me how government control of radio, telephone, radio and telegraphs (at that time in history) would help America to recover from the Depression.

Let's fast forward, this same FCC has and is working very hard to seize control of the internet through “Net Neutrality”. Again, where in the Constitution does a department within the executive branch have the right to regulate what a privately owned business can or cannot do?

Where in the Constitution does it give an agency, not even a Cabinet post to regulate international trade and or treaty? Is this not the jobs of the House and Senate?

Take the out of control EPA.

The EPA was established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, was established to protect both public health and public welfare by regulating the emission of air pollutants that could be (my emphasis) hazardous to the health of the Earth. The law set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in each state and continues to monitor the air quality through these standards.

Now, like all Americans, I know the need for clean air, but by passing this law it, in my opinion, allowed congress and the states to turn over their control of interstate and intrastate commerce to an agency headed by an unelected official, who is not even a cabinet head.

Later in 1972 congress passed the Clean Water Act in order to regulate the water quality standards. This includes navigable waters and any connecting water, including coastal waters, lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands and now mud puddles.

Again, congress and the states unconstitutionally abdicated their right and duties as defined by the Constitution to the executive branch.

These are just a few of instances where Congress and the States have basically violated the Constitution in favor of a centralized government. (SPOILER ALERT! On going in depth project research on this in work for posting later)

So I have to say to Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council and M's Schlafly, who are calling the TPP “another power grab” and pointing out the abdication of congressional powers to the executive branch.....

No Chit Sherlocks: Where have YOU Been? 

Semper Fi!

Further information can be found in:

Undermining the Constitution by Thomas James Norton

The Federalist

Federalist No. 9 - The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, page 38

Federalist No. 47 - The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained, pages 249 – 55

Federalist No. 51 - The same subject continued, with the same view, and concluded, pages 267–72

Federalist No. 66 - A further view of the constitution of the senate, in relation to its capacity, as a court for the trial of impeachments, pages 342– 44 

Federalist No. 71 - Concerning the constitution of the president: a gross attempt to misrepresent this part of the plan detected, page 371

Federalist No. 73 - The same view continued, in relation to the provision concerning support, and the power of the negative, pages 379 – 384

Federalist No. 75 - The same view continued, in relation to the power of making treaties, pages 387–90

Federalist No. 78 - A view of the constitution of the judicial department in relation to the tenure of good behaviour [sic], pages 402–408

Federalist No. 81 - A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the distribution of its authority, pages 418–419

Obama Says He Cares for the Veterans? How? By Stripping Funds?

Obama wants to strip funding from veterans' medical choice program

President Obama’s 2016 budget blueprint proposes rolling back a program that gives veterans the right to receive faster care outside of the long waitlists at the troubled Veterans Affairs medical system. (The Emperor giveth, The Emperor taketh away....OM)

Obama signed the Veterans Choice Program into law in August following months of partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill that finally led to a compromise measure to overhaul the agency.

The Veterans Choice Program was a key GOP provision in the deal.

Authored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the measure provides “choice” cards to veterans that can be used to obtain medical care at designated facilities outside of the VA system.

But Obama announced Monday he’ll send a legislative proposal to Congress that would allow the VA to raid the program's funding, now set at $10 billion.

Obama, in his fiscal 2016 spending blueprint, said the money is needed “to support essential investments in VA system priorities in a fiscally responsible, budget-neutral manner.”

Obama has requested a nearly 8 percent boost in funding for the beleaguered VA in 2016, for a total of $70.2 billion in discretionary spending. (Discretionary spending? Like bonuses for Union members that do substandard work, sounds like KY State government. OR for over budgeted VA center, should make people wonder what unions are involved in that boondoggle OR Big Screen T.V.s for information...OM)

Democrats have pushed for additional money for the VA to pay for new hospitals (Payback for Unions or BRIBES to UNIONS...OM) and more doctors, but Republicans contend that waste and mismanagement are the primary problems facing the VA, and the Choice Program gives vets a chance to escape the dysfunction by allowing them to receive outside medical care.

Veterans groups were angered by the move to divert funding from the program, noting that Obama had touted the legislation to reform the VA in the months leading up to the November election and did not express opposition to the choice cards.(Key phrase "leading up to the November election", REMEMBER the Socialist Clown in Chief & his minions will say ANYTHING to get elected....OM)

The program was funded to last until 2017 but would end sooner if money is diverted, critics said.

“That money was specifically allocated by him for the choice program,” Dan Caldwell, the legislative director for Concerned Veterans for America, told the Washington Examiner. “What that would do is cause the choice program to be a lot shorter and to inevitably serve fewer veterans.”

But in a conference call with reporters on Monday, officials with the Department of Veterans Affairs defended the move. They said the choice program was underused, and that many of the 8.6 million veterans who received cards said they would rather obtain care at VA facilities.

“What we are getting ... is that they are looking for more care within the VA system,” Helen Tierney, assistant VA secretary for management and the VA’s chief financial officer, said.

But veterans groups say the choice program rollout has been hindered by red tape, including a requirement that those who receive a choice card call the VA to determine whether they are actually eligible to use it.

Officials at the VA said they don’t know how much money they would like to shift from the program. Tierney said the VA has made “a tremendous number of calls to veterans,” and that the use rates are “much lower than anticipated.”

Tierney, however, said she did not know the specific use rates.

Republicans on Capitol Hill denounced the move and said they’d reject it.

“The president’s idea to reallocate a portion of Veterans Choice Program funding to other areas of VA is a complete non-starter, which I will not support,” House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said. “When a near-unanimous Congress worked with President Obama last year to create the choice program, we made a promise to veterans to give them more freedom in their healthcare decisions. I will not stand idly by while the president attempts to renege on that promise.” (Everyone needs to REMEMBER, last year was an election year and does ANYONE really expect anything different from those critters, BOTH sides, seeking power. Not much difference from celebrities and "talking heads" who express outrage over the treatment/lack of treatment of American Veterans, then crickets....OM)

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-wants-to-strip-funding-from-veterans-medical-choice-program/article/2559681?custom_click=rss

Hey Obama - Isn't Payback is a Bwitch

The Obama administration reportedly is fuming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress in March regarding the Iranian threat, with one unnamed official (I wonder if this is the same unnamed source that said, "Netanyahu is a "chickensh--" who is more interested in his political standing in Israel than he is in seeking peace in the region."...OM) telling an Israeli newspaper he will pay “a price” for the snub. (Like maybe the Obama administration officials will describe Netanyahu as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.”...OM)

House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu -- and the Israeli leader accepted – without any involvement from the White House.

In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a “departure” from protocol (Yet it was all right for then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to defy the White House's Middle East policy by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying, "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."...OM). He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to influence Israel’s upcoming elections.

But in private, Obama’s team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to Haaretz.

"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.(like forcing Prime Minister Netanyahu to use an anonymous side entrance or not having a press conference or photographed handshake...OM)

“He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price." (Or for Obama to leave Netanyahu half-way through the meeting, to go and dine with his family and not invite the prime minister to join him.....OM)

Administration officials, including Earnest, did not deny the quote at the time, though the White House stressed the criticism did not reflect how the rest of the administration views Netanyahu.

On Friday, Earnest once again was asked about tensions with the Israeli government. Asked if the decision to speak to Congress was a slap at the Obama administration, he said, “I certainly didn't interpret it that way.”

As for the decision for Obama not to meet with his Israeli counterpart, he stood by the earlier explanation.

“This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad, he said.

Meanwhile, Haaretz also reported that Obama had directly warned Netanyahu to stop urging U.S. lawmakers to back legislation teeing up new sanctions against Iran.

Obama has threatened to veto such a bill, saying it could derail delicate talks over Iran’s nuclear program – and Netanyahu’s visit to Washington could give him an opportunity to further encourage sanctions legislation.

Haaretz reported that Israel’s ambassador already has been urging members of Congress to support the measures. The newspaper reported that Obama told Netanyahu to stop during a Jan. 12 phone call.

On Friday, Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Netanyahu have a “fundamental disagreement” about the diplomatic talks with Iran.

“He doesn't share [the administration’s] view,” he said. But Earnest also said the “differences of opinion” do not undermine America’s commitment to Israel’s security.

As Obama officials often do, he described that commitment as “unshakable.”

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/there-will-be-price-obama-team-reportedly-fuming-over-netanyahu-visit/?intcmp=latestnews

Adding Insult to America's Broken Promises: Targeting Veterans for Back Door Gun Registration

PERSONAL NOTE: To all of those who regularly follow my rants particularly when it comes to calling out the hypocrisy of those who use the the continuing scandal of the Veterans Administration to get more time in the spotlight and then fade away having achieved absolutely nothing, I APOLOGIZE for the appearance that I was one of those BUT during December, I was a major sickbay commando. To use an old saying, "I was hard down." I may not be 100%, but I am back!

The Clown in Chief could not take time out of his "busy" campaign schedule to visit those who sacrificed so that he could be elected by the sheeple to destroy America as Obama dodged a reminder of the veterans’ health-care scandal this week by driving by the Carl Hayden VA medical center in Phoenix, which was at the heart of last year's scandal that ONCE AGAIN drew attention to the years old America's broken promise to those of us, past and present, who put our lives on hold to defend the Freedoms of America that the sheeple have taken for granted, without stopping.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Mr. Obama had no plans to visit the Phoenix VA, and instead will give a speech about the housing industry’s recovery.

NOW the Department of Veterans Affairs is adding insult to the many scandals of not honoring America's promise and commitments to the Vets by offering free gun locks to veterans IF veterans provide details on the number of guns they own and their home address which is raising concerns about a government-run gun registry.

Some veterans have received a form letter in recent days from the VA offering gun locks if they return a completed form listing their name, address and number of guns in the home.

“As your partner in healthcare, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe,” states the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. “Gun locks have been shown to greatly reduce death and injury caused by firearms in the home. If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock.”

The letter said agency officials “hope to reach all our veterans with this offer.” The VA said it will mail the locks to the address provided by a veteran.

One veteran who received the letter said it raises concerns about “a gun registry in disguise.” (YOU THINK?...OM)

“Young soldiers are already notoriously reluctant to admit any problems with post-traumatic stress disorder,” said the veteran, who asked to remain anonymous.

“Imagine the effect if the average 23-year-old private … back from Iraq, already reluctant to ask for help … is now hearing rumors that if he seeks help from the VA for sleeplessness, PTSD, nightmares, etc., Big Brother is going take his guns away? Now young veterans will really avoid asking for help,” the veteran said.

The letter about gun locks obtained by the Times was signed by Daniel Hendee, director of the VA medical center in Philadelphia.

A VA spokesman in Washington said he was not aware of such an effort and could not provide further comment immediately. (Does anyone REALLY expect anything else from the District of Corruption?...OM)

Last month, an ex-Marine who was being treated for various health issues through the Philadelphia VA office shot and killed six family members before taking his own life.

And on Tuesday, an incident at the VA clinic in El Paso, Texas, resulted into two deaths — the gunman and a victim. However authorities released no information Tuesday night on who the shooter was, his motive, or whether it was a murder-suicide or he was killed by security forces.

In both cases, how would gun locks prevent these tragedies, IF the gunmen owned the weapons?

A couple of questions Patriotic Americans should ask

First and most importantly: Are the Socialists who are now controlling our country attempting to demonize America's veterans as they have our police officers by using the propaganda of the 1960's, where all returning veterans are "crazed" killers and right wing extremists.

Second: Is this an attempt not only for federal gun registration, but to use the Brady bill to deny gun ownership to veterans, as in the case of Pat Kirby:

"The Brady Act does not, in fact, allow a person like Pat to be denied gun ownership rights. The VA, and, apparently, the Federal government, are using the section about being 'adjudicated a mental defective' to illegally deny men like Pat Kirby the rights he fought for during his 37 months in Vietnam. The key word, there, is 'adjudicated.' A finding by the VA that someone is incompetent to handle his money is not an adjudication. To adjudicate something is to hear and settle a case by judicial procedure. This is not a judicial procedure--it is a finding by bureaucrat who is not a mental health professional. This is something that needs to be resolved by litigation because what the VA is doing is illegal and unconstitutional."

Third: Why should anyone trust the VA with ANY personal data considering that two years after a major security breach compromised the personal information of over 4,000 veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to suffer from systemic “security weaknesses,” according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Finally: Who knows more about weapons handling and safety then our military and veterans? 

Semper Fi and REMEMBER Gun Control is an Assault on Your God Given Rights!

Sources:
 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/6/va-free-gun-locks-raises-concerns-gun-registry/?page=all#pagebreak

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-motorcade-drives-past-scandal-ridden-phoenix-va-hospital_823349.html

Extortion By Any Other Name is Still Extortion

And this is the man that visits and advises Obama on a regular basis?

Sharpton gets paid to not cry ‘racism’ at corporations

Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?

Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.

For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in "donations" and "consulting fees" to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence. (HUSH MONEY?..OM)

Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama (Free speech and Free thought police...OM). Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un.

Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported.

No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood. (Would someone PLEASE point out what "racial bias"? If any bias exists, its against CONSERVATIVES...OM)

                             Sony exec Amy Pascal leaves her hotel after a meeting with Sharpton.                    Photo: ZUMAPRESS

Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence.

“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton. (Isn't this what Organized Crime does? Since, these businesses do business across state lines & Sharpton extorts them, is this not a case of violation of RICO?...OM)

And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever. (And large contributions to the Socialist Democratic Party?...OM)

“Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.” (That's why you don't don't pay extortionists....OM)

Horse in the race

One example of Sharpton’s playbook has emerged in tax filings and a state inspector general’s report. (Sharpton filed taxes, but doesn't pay them...OM)

In 2008, Plainfield Asset Management, a Greenwich, Conn.-based hedge fund, made a $500,000 contribution to New York nonprofit Education Reform Now. That money was immediately funneled to the National Action Network.

The donation raised eyebrows. Although the money was ostensibly to support NAN’s efforts to bring “educational equality,” it also came at a time that Plainfield was trying to get a lucrative gambling deal in New York.

Plainfield had a $250 million stake in Capital Play, a group trying to secure a license to run the coming racino at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens. Capital Play employed a lobbyist named Charlie King, who also was the acting executive director of NAN.

Sharpton has said that most of the Plainfield contribution went to pay King’s salary.

King’s company, the Movement Group, was paid $243,586 by NAN in 2008, tax records show.

Harold Levy, a former New York City schools chancellor who was a managing director at Plainfield at the time, has denied the contribution was made to curry favor with Sharpton or anyone else. But a year later, as the battle for the racino license heated up, NAN raked in another $100,000 from representatives of the AEG consortium, which was the successor company to Capital Play.

One AEG member e-mailed another in 2009 saying, “Sharpton lobbied [then-Gov. David Paterson] hard over the weekend on our behalf,” according to the state inspector general’s 2010 report on the corrupt racino licensing process.

In order to discredit SL Green, one of the rival bidders whose plan included a Hard Rock Hotel, an AEG executive sent another e-mail outlining tactics to conscript local leaders to its cause.

“We are going to need it, and we are going to need . . . Sharpton to piss on hard rock,” according to the undated e-mail cited in the IG’s report.

Sharpton denied he lobbied on behalf of AEG.

The donations, meanwhile, came at an opportune time for Sharpton, as NAN was deep in debt to the IRS in 2008. It owed $1.3 million in unpaid federal, state and city payroll taxes including interest and penalties.

AEG viewed its payments to Sharpton as more of an insurance policy so he wouldn’t scuttle its chances by criticizing the group, said a source familiar with the racino controversy.

Cost of doing business

Sharpton raised $1 million for NAN at his 60th birthday bash in October, with donations rolling in from unions and a corporate roster of contributors including AT&T, McDonald’s, Verizon and Walmart.

Companies have long gotten in line to pay Sharpton. Macy’s and Pfizer have forked over thousands to NAN, as have General Motors, American Honda and Chrysler.

NAN had repeatedly and without success asked GM for donations for six years beginning in August 2000, a GM spokesman told The Post. Then, in 2006, Sharpton threatened a boycott of GM over the planned closing of an African-American-owned dealership in The Bronx. He picketed outside GM’s Fifth Avenue headquarters. GM wrote checks (Remember the Federal bail out? So I guess the money to NAN was taxpayers' money...OM) to NAN for $5,000 in 2007 and another $5,000 in 2008.

Sharpton targeted American Honda in 2003 for not hiring enough African-Americans in management positions. (Does education, qualifications mean anything? Or is it JUST the color of your skin?...OM)

“We support those that support us,” Sharpton wrote to the company. “We cannot be silent while African-Americans spend hard-earned dollars with a company that does not hire, promote or do business with us in a statistically significant manner.”

Two months later, car-company leaders met with Sharpton, and Honda began to sponsor NAN’s events. The protests stopped.

Sharpton landed a gig as a $25,000-a-year adviser to Pepsi after he threatened a consumer boycott of the soda company in 1998, saying its ads did not portray African-Americans. He held the position until 2007.

As for Sony, Sharpton denied that his meeting with Pascal resulted in a donation to NAN.

“I have had no discussion with her about money.” Sharpton told The Post. “There was never even a remote discussion about money.” (YEA RIGHT!...OM)

Source: http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sharpton-gets-paid-to-not-cry-racism-at-corporations/  with additional reporting from Amber Jamieson

Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Continued Pentagon Cover Up

Nearly five months after the release of Taliban prisoner Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (Calling him Sgt is an insult to ALL who have EARN the rank...OM), the military has yet to release a report on Bergdahl leaving deserting his Afghanistan post in 2009 that also makes recommendations on whether he should be punished. (If he isn't punished, that would mean ANY member of the military who decides to desert his post would / should go unpunished, an extremely bad precedent will be set or has that precedent already been set some 20+ years ago with the case of Robert Russell Garwood, another case that it my opinion had political overtones considering we had a Draft Dodging Commander in Chief in the White house...OM)

The Pentagon says it is not holding up the decision, though the review by Army Gen. Kenneth Dahl was finished in early October. (Waiting for Boo Boo's intervention? ...OM)

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, recently acknowledged the report has been completed and said it is under review.

“As you know, in this building that can sometimes take a while, especially for major investigations like this," he said. (Considering that the Pentagon has become more about politics then about defense. ...OM)

Desertion in the military is technically punishable by death. But given the circumstances of Bergdahl's case, such a sentence is essentially out of the realm of possibility. (Why?...OM)

Editor's Note:

ARTICLE 85. DESERTION

Did Bergdahl

(a) Any member of the armed forces who–

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away there from permanently; YES.

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or - YES

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, (WAS AMERICA AT WAR...YES! DID BERGDAHL LEAVE HIS POST WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION?...YES! Whats the problem?) but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Bergdahl, the only American prisoner in the war deserter in Afghanistan, could face a lesser administrative punishment including forfeiture of back pay or even jail time. But Army officials are acutely aware of the potential political backlash that could follow severely punishing a prisoner of war  deserter. (Since when does "political backlash" have any influence on the Military Justice system?...OM)

Meanwhile, Bergdahl is still serving as a sergeant(Be interesting to hear him giving a lower rank instructions / orders...OM) at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. He has a desk job with the Army after being held captive for roughly five years, much of that time spent in a metal box (Where's the proof? Considering there are photos of him holding a weapon and playing soccer. Isn't the first duty of an American POW as explained by Article 3 of the Code of Conduct:

Article III

a. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. ...OM)

Bergdahl’s May 2014 release, which was secured by exchanging five high-value Taliban detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, has sparked widespread controversy.

Soon after President Obama announced the exchange, many of Bergdahl’s former unit members spoke out, calling him a deserter, saying he put fellow soldiers’ lives at risk. (Accessory before and after the fact?...OM)

At least some Republican lawmakers think it was a bad deal. (So do a lot of the American people....OM)

Sen. John McCain referred to the prisoners as “the Taliban dream team.”

"These are the worst of the worst, the hardest of the hardest,” the Arizona Republican (And former REAL POW...OM) told Fox News. “I can't tell you how dangerous these people are."

Now, California GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former Marine (HEY FoxNews, There is NO SUCH THING as a FORMER MARINE...OM), wants to know whether the swap included a ransom and if the United States was swindled. (And the American people and the Critters will never know, just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting scandal and the list goes on and on ad nauseam...OM)

"It has been brought to my attention that a payment was made to an Afghan intermediary who ‘disappeared’ with the money and failed to facilitate Bergdahl's release in return," Hunter wrote Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in a Nov. 4 letter.

The alleged payment, Hunter says, was made in February through the Joint Special Operations Command and might have exceeded $1 million.

“Number one, you can't pay ransoms,” Hunter told Fox News. “Number two, if there is an exceptional case when you can get an American back, then there ought to be some oversight and there has to be some congressional purview over this -- and there hasn't been. I mean the (Defense Department) can't break the law and have no repercussions whatsoever.”

The Pentagon told Hunter on Friday that no money was exchanged and that paying ransom is indeed against the law.

“There was no ransom paid,” Kirby told reporters. “Nor was there an attempt to do so that failed.”

Hunter’s office still alleges that FBI operatives and members of the Army’s elite Delta Force orchestrated a botched cash exchange and says the congressman will request a formal investigation of the matter by the Defense Department’s inspector general.

The deal purportedly involved Delta members giving the money to an informant who disappeared instead of giving Bergdahl to FBI agents at a predetermined spot inside Afghanistan, on the border with North Waziristan.

Concerns about the circumstances of the prisoner swap have increased in the wake of the Islamic State executing five Americans in the past four months.

The president has ordered a review of how American hostages are handled by the U.S. government. (In other words, Boo Boo wants America to START negotiating with terrorists...OM)

Families of the beheaded Americans have issued complaints about how their sons’ cases were handled. However, the White House says it has no plans to allowing ransom to be paid for hostages. (YEA RIGHT,,,OM)

Semper Fi!

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/public-awaits-military-completed-bergdahl-report-that-includes-recommendations/?intcmp=latestnews

Politically Correct DoD Renames “unlawful combatants” in Detainee Manual

In fact, captured terrorists went out of style a long time ago, so that’s not the actual change. Until recently — like, say, two weeks ago — the Department of Defense used the term unlawful combatant as the label for terrorists captured by American military and intelligence forces as a way to distinguish them from uniformed soldiers of a recognized state authority in a straight-up fight. Their new manual dispenses with that term, the Federation of American Scientists noticed today (November 26, 2011) (via Steven Aftergood and Olivier Knox):

When it comes to Department of Defense doctrine on military treatment of detained persons, “unlawful enemy combatants” are a thing of the past. That term has been retired and replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in a new revision of Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations, dated November 13, 2014.

The manual even has this helpful chart for readers:

The only actual mention of the previous term comes in the Summary of Changes on page iii, which notes that the revision “[r]evises terminology, taxonomy, and definitions for unlawful enemy combatant, unprivileged belligerent, detainee, and detainee operations.” There is no particular explanation for why unlawful combatant no longer suffices, or why “unprivileged” makes for a clearer understanding between the categories of legitimate POW and everyone else.

So what’s going on here? Political correctness run amok, like saying there’s no such thing as an unlawful person? A way to reinforce the idea of “privilege”? No, not really — or at least not on the DoD’s behalf. If anyone’s to blame for the blandification of nomenclature … it’s Congress. The new revision to the DoD manual brings the terminology in line with 10 U.S. Code § 948a, which provides definitions for detainee policies rewritten by Congress to refine the military-commission process. It provides a very precise definition of the two classes of belligerents (Don't they mean ENEMIES...OM):

(6) Privileged belligerent.— The term “privileged belligerent” means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent.— The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—

    (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
    (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or            its coalition partners; or
    (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.

This section goes back to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, sponsored by Mitch McConnell, but the new terms were introduced in the 111th Congress in the NDAA for 2009. It passed in October 2009 and was signed a few days later by President Obama. The only contemporaneous discussion of this change I could find in a quick search was by Joanne Mariner at Findlaw, who dismissed it as “cosmetic.” Another change was somewhat more substantial:

The new law begins by tweaking the definition of individuals eligible for trial before military commissions — most obviously by scrapping the phrase “unlawful enemy combatant,” and replacing it with “unprivileged enemy belligerent.” This is a cosmetic change, not a real improvement, which mirrors the administration’s decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas litigation at Guantanamo Bay.

In addition, the new definition sets out three separate grounds on which a person might be deemed an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” which vary somewhat from the grounds for eligibility included in the previous definition. The third ground, now separate from the previous two, is membership in Al Qaeda, whether or not the member has engaged in or supported hostilities against the US. (Under the previous definition, membership in “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” was relevant to the determination of whether a person had engaged in or supported hostilities, but was not itself a distinct ground for eligibility.)

Notably, the Taliban is no longer specifically named in the new definition. This suggests, perhaps, that the administration is acknowledging a meaningful difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wants to leave open, at least for the future, the possibility that the Taliban is not the enemy (Then why doesn't Boo Boo invite the Taliban to the WH for a coffee summit?...OM).

That might seem a little more notable in the wake of the Bowe Bergdahl swap (Where is the media, FOWNEWS in particular, following up on what the Army did with this deserter?,,,OM). It’s possible that this could provide the White House a way to press for the release of more Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay (So that they can go back & join ISIS/ISSL or whatever they want to call it. I call them enemies...OM), but it would be a tendentious and silly argument. Publicly, the administration (The same administration that said if you like your doctor or your health insurance you can keep them?....OM) has argued that the risk from their release has disappeared by now, which is their main and most effective argument, even if experience has clearly proven it to be untrue — which we’ve known for years.

At any rate, the new nomenclature seems pretty silly, and the need to change from unlawful combatant non-existent. Don’t blame the Department of Defense for it, although we can certainly wonder why it took them five years to catch up to the changes (and what may have prompted the recent action). That silliness comes from one of America’s great resources of silliness and meaningless redefinitions of perfectly suitable language — from your elected officials on Capitol Hill. On the plus side, we can now ask terrorists to check their unprivilege as they enter the detention system, or something.

Let us know what you think.

Semper Fi!

A thank you to the Riceman for the tip!

Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/dod-renames-unlawful-combatants-in-detainee-manual-to/

Monarch (Tyrant, Despot?) or President?

This is a special post written by The Riceman, a friend, colleague and fellow Patriot. I'm honored to post it here.

In Federalist #69, Hamilton compared the powers and limitations of the proposed U.S. Executive to the powers of the British Monarch. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis is mine):

1. The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. (Apparently, the Republicans are treating the Current Occupant as a Monarch, since they cannot even bring themselves to utter the "I-Word".)

2. The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utomst plentitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. (Witness the Current Occupant's recent Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Agreement with China: He decreed it to be so--there's no talk of the Congress ratifying ANYTHING!)

3. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. (Taking the second point first: didn't the Current Occupant actually select the new head of General Motors, after the government took controlling interest in that corporation, as well as Chrysler Corp.? Lastly, what of today's planned announcement of the Executive Order granting Amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants plus the millions more that will come due to both the porous border and chain immigration?)

So, do we still have a national executive, or has it degenerated in to a Hereditary/Monied Aristocracy Monarch (Bushes & Clintons)? 

President or Monarch/Tyrant/Despot??

Sources: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm

                http://constitution.org/c5/

Semper Fi and thank you Riceman!