Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Tipping Toward Tyranny

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Tipping Toward Tyranny
“We know better than what they tell us, yet hope otherwise.” — Thomas Pynchon, in a 2003 introduction to George Orwell’s reprinted classic, 1984

After the past few months, nothing President Barack Obama and his Chicago troika (first lady Michelle Obama, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder) says shocks me. Their ideology is based on their African-American heritage and their Islamic sympathies. What should shock us is that we are allowing the Obama Administration to do what it wants with nary an objection — not from the people, not from the press and not even from our Republican representatives in Congress.

Our latest engagement in Syria will only make that nation a breeding ground for future terrorists. The consequences of that will be arguments by the Obama Administration for even greater authority. That will mean Americans will have fewer liberties.  Don’t count on public outrage.

In a recent poll from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, 56 percent of those surveyed said the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program to track phone records is acceptable. Only 41 percent said it was unacceptable. When asked about anti-terrorism efforts, 62 percent of respondents said it was more important for the government to investigate possible terror threats, even if the price was personal privacy.

I cannot comprehend how almost two out of every three Americans are perfectly willing to let Obama shred the 4th Amendment. It gets worse. Some Republicans in Congress are suggesting that journalists should be subject to arrest if their articles put the Nation at risk. Risk is how the Obama Administration defines it. If this happens, there goes the 1st Amendment. All of this begs the question: If we are willing to give up these Constitutional rights, are we willing to give up everything in the Constitution? Will America sacrifice the right to bear arms and even the 22nd Amendment, the only instrument that limits the President to two terms?

I try not to be too pessimistic, but it seems that we are at a tipping point — something Malcolm Gladwell studied and wrote about in his acclaimed book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. In it, he states, “Change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment.”


Flying Blind And Blind Trust

My own personal experiences have demonstrated that Gladwell is correct. I almost had a life-ending moment, and I wasn’t aware of it until it was upon me.

It was 20 years ago when my uncle, Dick Myers, flew me to Billings, Mont., in his Cessna 172. We took the trip to see Little Bighorn Battlefield, the site of Gen. George Custer’s last stand.

Dick had let me handle the controls from the co-pilots seat many times before in mid-flight, but only on perfectly clear days. Dick had flown for decades, with 2,000 hours as first in command. When he asked me if I wanted to take control over the middle of Montana, I said, “You bet.”

We were cruising at 120 mph at an altitude of 8,000 feet. Dick was taking a rest in the left seat, eyes closed.

A cloudbank overcame us with me at the controls. I understood only two gauges: the altimeter and the airspeed indicator. In pilot jargon, I was flying VFR, or visual flight rules. Given my inexperience, it was necessary for me to be able to see the horizon just to keep the plane flying straight and level. But I was blissfully ignorant as the clouds came upon us. Everything seemed fine when Dick became startled, saying, “I have the controls!”

I didn’t know what all the excitement was about, but certainly Dick was plenty excited. He grabbed the yoke and rammed the throttle forward. The small Cessna’s single engine roared. We momentarily broke through the clouds. It was then that I was able to see I had not been flying straight. Our plane was listing to the right, and the nose of the plane was pointed toward the prairie below.

It couldn’t have been much more than a minute; but in that time, I had lost all ability to tell up from down. It is called spatial disorientation. It is what happened to John F. Kennedy Jr. when he crashed his Piper Saratoga into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., in 1999. All Dick had to do was give the instruments a quick check to stabilize the plane as we flew back into cloud cover.

“That was close,” Dick exclaimed. I could tell he was angry at himself for not being alert as I flew into the clouds. He had trusted the weather report before we departed which said there would be an unlimited ceiling. After we landed (and over a much-needed beverage), he told me that when flying, things can go bad in the blink of an eye. As Gladwell explained in his book, a great many things reach a tipping point.

It is easy to blame the loss of liberties on Obama because of his disregard for the Constitution. Yet millions of Americans implicitly trust Obama to do the right thing — even after the Benghazi, Libya, cover-up; abuses by the Internal Revenue Service; the seizure of telephone records of reporters; and the all-encompassing NSA spy program.

How can you blindly trust someone you have never met and don’t know? Even the people who have written about Obama and support his policies admit that nobody — with the exception of his wife, Michelle — knows who Obama is.

Let me tell you about trust. That same summer I was flying the airplane, there was a front-page story in our hometown newspaper. Our family doctor of 15 years was arrested (he was later convicted) for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male patient. The news was crushing because he was a good doctor and, I thought, a sensible man. He delivered our babies and even made house-calls if anyone in the family was ill. He had a wife and child. He was the kind of man that women wanted to be with and men wanted to be like. He had a thriving practice. And I thought I knew him well.

All these years later, I still ask: How could I have been so wrong? Who do we really know?

I have known my wife for 40 years. I believe I know what is in her heart, and she knows what is in mine. But beyond my wife, I really can’t make blanket statements about anyone. And I certainly wouldn’t make one about someone I have never met who is also a politician.

When millions of Americans feel they can trust Obama, we are near a tipping point. I just hope that America can save itself before it’s too late.

Yours in good times and bad,

Hey 'bama...didn't anyone ever tell you America does NOT negotiate with terrorists...

U.S., Taliban to meet in Qatar for talks on ending Afghan war

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

"U.S. and Taliban representatives will meet soon for the first time to begin what are expected to be long and complex negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the war in Afghanistan." The U.S. entered Afghanistan to topple the Taliban from power and end their influence in the country. So these talks in themselves constitute an admission of failure.

"US, Taliban to meet in Qatar for 'key milestone' toward ending Afghanistan war," by Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Erin McClam, NBC News, June 18:
U.S. and Taliban representatives will meet soon for the first time to begin what are expected to be long and complex negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the war in Afghanistan, senior Obama administration officials said Tuesday. 
The officials told NBC News that the meeting will take place in the next several days in the Qatari capital of Doha. The Taliban will open an office there for the purpose of negotiating directly with the Afghan government, the officials said. A precise date was not announced.
"This is a key milestone on the way to the complete transition of responsibility for security to Afghans by the end of next year," a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said via conference call after the announcement was made.
The news came after months of failed attempts to start peace talks, while Taliban insurgents continued attacks throughout Afghanistan.
The negotiating conditions require the Taliban to break their ties with al Qaeda, end the violence and accept the Afghan constitution, especially the protections for women and minorities, the officials said.
But because of deep distrust between the Afghan government and the Taliban, the process will be “complex, long and messy,” one official said. The officials emphasized that expectations were low, but said the opening of Doha office was a crucial step for Afghanistan.
"We have long said that this conflict will likely not be won on the battlefield, and that is why we support the opening of this office," said one senior administration official.
As for the American government's role in the talks, the United States "will have a role in direct talks, but this is a negotiation that will have to be led by Afghans," another said.
The disclosure came on the same day that international forces, led by the United States, handed control of Afghan national security to local forces — a milestone after almost 12 years of war. Most foreign combat troops will leave the country by the end of 2014.
Obama administration officials also told NBC News that the U.S. is pursuing a prisoner exchange with the Taliban to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held for several years by the Haqqani network, considered a dangerous element of the Taliban....

Obama gives $300 million more to the Syrian jihadists

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

"Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of" -- New York Times, April 28, 2013.

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda -- USA Today, April 11, 2013.

Bringing the total to $815 million for the allies of al-Qaeda and proponents of jihad and Sharia.

"Obama announces extra $300 million in aid for Syrians, refugees," by Ian Johnston for NBC News, June 18:
The U.S. is to give more than $300 million in additional “life-saving humanitarian assistance” to Syrians caught up in the country’s civil war, Barack Obama has announced, taking the total amount given since the conflict began to nearly $815 million. At the G-8 summit in Ireland, President Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss his goals in intervening in the Syrian conflict. Meanwhile polls show the American public does not want to arm Syrian rebels. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
The extra money will be used to pay for food, medical care, clean water, shelter and other relief supplies for people in Syria and some of the 1.6 million refugees who have fled to neighboring countries.
The president announced the extra money during a meeting with world leaders at the Group of Eight summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, on Monday.
“The United States remains the single-largest contributor of humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people,” a statement on the White House’s website said.
“The United States supports and appreciates the countries hosting the 1.6 million refugees who have fled the brutal conflict in Syria, and commends host-nation efforts to provide protection, assistance, and hospitality to all those fleeing violence,” the statement said.
“The United States recognizes the significant strains on host communities and the economic impact of providing refuge to such a large number of people,” it added. “We call on all host governments to continue to keep their borders open to those still fleeing violence in Syria.”...

President Obama’s gun gaffe was nearly lost in the pre-Christmas flood of TV and internet chatter. But Breitbart’s Joel Pollak was right to highlight Mr. Obama’s bizarre post-election statement. One of the reasons he ran for re-election, Mr. Obama told Barbara Walters, was so he could have “men with guns around” as his daughters entered their teen years. What a gaffe!

We need to focus on that comment now, especially in light of his bromides about fathers in his Father’s Day message. Mr. Obama last week issued a typical Father’s Day Proclamation leading up to the weekend. In it, he said “there is no substitute for fathers.” But in the same proclamation, he takes it back, asserting that two moms will substitute nicely for a father in the home.

Of course, the Obama administration named Professor Chai Feldblum to a key position on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This radical lesbian activist presses for a legal end of marriage. She advocates the idea that any number of concerned adults should be granted legal custody of any number of children. You can read all about it in the statement issued by Feldblum and many of her radical cohorts. Just think of the Village People instead of a mom and dad.

Teens in Chicago, the President’s hometown, feel keenly the absence of fathers in the home. But they certainly have plenty of men with guns around. Over this Father’s Day weekend, seven were killed and 41 wounded in a wave of shootings.

We don’t yet know, but we can readily surmise, that most of those shooting and most of those shot were fatherless young men. The numbers are daunting. Three-quarters of the teen rapists in our prisons and two-thirds of the teen murderers in our prisons are fatherless young men. The link between fatherlessness and violence is too well documented to be seriously doubted.

The Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religious Research Institute has produced a vast array of social science data that can help guide our discussions of the role of marriage and religious observance in American life. We need to have our elected officials and government administrators thoroughly conversant with the work of MARRI.

And we should applaud those figures in the popular culture who have the courage to stand up for what is right. For example, FOX News contributor Juan Williams deserves credit for denouncing a notorious deadbeat dad. This bad actor actually brags of fathering twenty-two children by fourteen women. This cruel man has robbed his own children of their birthright -- the right to the protection and provision of a loving father.

Let’s face it, one of the major attractions of the Barack Obama candidacy was the idea that he and the lovely Michelle Obama and their delightful children would provide the best imaginable role model in the White House. Married and devoted to one another, the Obamas could speak with clarity, charity, and conviction on the importance of re-building a marriage culture in America.

It is a tragedy of historic proportions that under the presidency of Barack Obama, marriage, fatherhood, and family security are being dealt lethal blows. Last year, the Obama campaign even created “Julia,” a young woman living an ideal American life -- devoid of marriage and with no male present.

Despite kind words for dads in forgettable proclamations, the policy of the Obama administration reflects the views of sixties radicals: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Try telling that to the victims on the South Side of Chicago.

There's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Senate debate over the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill. Most Republicans believe a policy to integrate 11 million currently illegal immigrants into American society must be conditioned on stronger border security and internal enforcement. Most Democrats don't. At bottom, that's what the fight is about.

Most Republicans believe security must come before integration, in one of two ways. Some believe enhanced security must be in place -- not a plan, but a reality -- before the 11 million can be granted temporary legal status. (In the world of the Senate, "temporary" means six to 10 years.) It's probably fair to say that a majority of the Republican voting base holds that opinion.

Other Republicans believe enhanced security must be in place -- again, reality, not a plan -- before the legalized immigrants can move on, after 10 years, to permanent legal resident status, signified by a green card, and ultimately on to citizenship.

What unites the two camps is the conviction that enhanced security must actually be in place before today's illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in the U.S. for the rest of their lives.

Many Democrats pay lip service to the idea; after all, it's pretty popular not just with Republican voters but with Democrats and independents, too. But they don't see enhanced security as something that has to happen before immigrants may move forward.

If there were any doubts that many Democrats do not support enforcement before integration, those doubts were dispelled recently by Sen. Richard Durbin, a leading Democrat on the Gang of Eight.

"We have de-linked a pathway to citizenship and border enforcement," Durbin told National Journal. And Sen. Charles Schumer, another leading Democrat in the Gang, called a Republican attempt to strengthen the link between enforcement and the path to citizenship "a nonstarter."

As Democrats see it, reform must move today's illegal immigrants to temporary legal status, and then to permanent legal status, and then to citizenship without any major obstacles along the way. A requirement that any of those steps be dependent on specific security and enforcement improvements is a nonstarter not just for Schumer but for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and most other Democrats.

Right now, Durbin, Schumer and Reid have the advantage. The Gang of Eight bill being debated in the Senate does not require any security advances before illegal immigrants are granted a decade-long "temporary" legal status. And all that is required before those same immigrants move on to permanent legal status and citizenship is that a "Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy" be "substantially deployed and substantially operational."

What does "substantially" mean? It could mean anything, which is why lawmakers who don't want to place specific security requirements before permanent legalization like it.

When Sen. John Cornyn proposed to take out the word "substantially" and replace it with the specific standards for border security -- 100 percent surveillance of the border, a 90 percent apprehension rate -- Democrats immediately rejected it. They vowed never to even negotiate the issue.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been happy to let the public think the bill is tougher than it is.

For example, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight, talks all the time about the importance of putting new security measures in place, but he means before immigrants are given permanent status, not before the temporary, decade-long legalization that starts the process.
Rubio made that crystal clear in a recent Spanish-language interview. "First comes the legalization," he told the network Univision. "Then come the measures to secure the border." He added that legalization "is not conditional" -- that is, it doesn't depend on any new security measures being in place.

A number of Republicans were surprised by Rubio's words. When he talked about enhanced security these last few months, they thought he meant security before the first round of legalization. He didn't.

And just to make it unavoidably clear, last week the Senate voted on an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley that would have delayed the first, "temporary" legalization until six months after border security was actually in place. Rubio voted against it, along with the rest of the Gang of Eight and nearly every Democrat.

And even when it comes to the granting of permanent legal status, the Gang bill requires "substantial" deployment of new security, whatever that is. There's simply no requirement that the border be definitely, measurably secure before today's immigrants complete the journey from illegality to citizenship.

That's the way the Gang of Eight wants it.
America's sovereignty trumps the almighty dollar
By: Diane Sori

Cutting to the chase...we have NO cohesive  foreign or economic policies in place...neither dealing with 'those out to kill us' or those out to bankrupt or sponge off us.  Our policies seem to ebb and flow on the whims of this miserable excuse of a president and have NO substance behind them...and sometimes are outright unconstitutional.

And the ongoing Northern Ireland G8 Summit will bring all this to ahead for while the focus will be on the Syrian conflict and the meeting between the wars proxies, Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Russian President Vladamir Putin, other agendas are on the table but agendas NOT getting the media attention they so need.

While we're all well aware of Obama's foreign policy failures that include 'aiding and abetting' our country's enemies, his global economic failures, differing from his domestic economic failures yet somewhat linked together, are NOT so in-your-face. As a man who is trying to surrender America's sovereignty to the architects and supporters of the New World Order and Agenda 21, thankfully our Congress has prevented him from doing least up until this point.  However, Obama has now joined European leaders in pushing the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a supposed trade agreement for combining the economies and political structures of Europe and the US.  Claiming TTIP will help solve the world's current economic crises, the reality is that TTIP involves more than simply trade as it's been designed to force the US into 'regional governance' on differing issues. 

In other words, getting us involved in things we have NO business being involved in nor do 'We the People' want to be involved in.

And totally ignoring the fact that the US is a capitalistic free market country and Europe, for the most part, has turned socialist NOT only in how it governs its people but also in how it operates its independent governments, yesterday Obama, European Commission President Barroso, and European Council President Van Rompuy, jointly announced that the US and the EU (European Union) will start putting together the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), will meet in DC in the beginning of July, and will work under the auspices of the Office of the US Trade Representative to get it done. 

What Obama forgets is that the EU began as an economic and trade pact alone but that over the years has turned into a full-blown, all-encompassing national government whose agenda includes wiping out the national sovereignty of its member nations...something that they will most assuredly try to do to our country if we sign on to this...and Obama knows this very well but America's sovereignty is NOT something he cares about and would give away at the drop of a hat.

And while the purpose of TTIP seems well and fine on the surface, as its 'supposed' goal is to increase economic growth in the US and the EU by creating a trading bloc greater than NAFTA, by doing so it would also delve into public policy areas...into areas most people do NOT think applies to trade like personal freedoms...and that is very scary indeed especially coming on top of the current NSA spying on the American public scandal.

TTIP would also rework almost every current US regulatory law, creating a single set of standards for a global marketplace covering half the world’s GDP, and would have us lowering our standards to meet the majority of nations lower standards...NOT good...NOT good at all.

And most times international trade agreements are negotiated by bureaucrats who have more in common with each other than with the working class people in the countries they represent...and this is especially true for Europe.  And too much power in the hands of negotiators is dangerous, because negotiators in trade agreements are known for becoming lobbyists for their respective country's business interests instead of being proponents for what said country's people want, or how those interests affect the other countries involved.

Also, TTIP calls for 'investor-state' dispute resolution to solve problems that might arise, which means large corporations can file lawsuits to prevent government actions they just don't like...such as critical health and safety regulations...just like the World Trade Organization does, and again that is NOT good as corporate heads will control the regulations, and countries like the US and Britain would be forced to lower their standards if it would settle a dispute.

So the bottom line is that TTIP would be more monetarily advantageous for Europe (adding around 0.5% to the EU's annual economic output) than it would be for America, for while it would allow certain tariffs, customs procedures,
and behind the border regulatory restrictions to be done away with, thus making American goods somewhat easier to sell in Europe, the real goal is for the EU and US to meld many of their regulations and standards, thus laying down the foundation for creating global standards (standards that might be lower than ours) as world economic policy.

Global standards NOT American standards for America...meaning New World Order standards...meaning we would lose something our Constitution was written to prevent us from ever losing...our sovereignty in deciding what's best for America and America alone, and that trumps any and everything else.

Hear that Obama, 'We the People' want NO part of your march towards New World Order, economic or otherwise, as America's sovereignty staying intact is something that means more than the almighty dollar.