Saturday, December 20, 2008

Moscow Scoop - "Obama's Polish Roots' - Barack Obama’s grandfather ate Polish missionary

Cross posted from Pravda
Barack Obama’s grandfather ate Polish missionary...

A political scandal is gathering pace in Poland. Officials of the Polish administration are accused of releasing racist statements against US President-elect Barack Obama. Poland’s large opposition party Right and Justice said that the remarks had been voiced by the Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, the Dziennik newspaper wrote. Why does Barack Obama have Polish roots? Because his grandfather ate a Polish missionary

“Why does Barack Obama have Polish roots? Because his grandfather ate a Polish missionary.” This is the joke that Sikorski supposedly distributed in his ministry. The minister, the newspaper wrote, explained afterwards that he had heard the joke from someone else. However, Witold Waszczykowski a spokesman for the National Security Bureau, confirmed that he had heard the joke from Sikorski and added that he would be ready to testify at court.

The head of another opposition party of Poland, The Union of Leftist Democrats, Wojciech Olejniczak, said that he had heard Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the chairman of Right and Justice, telling the same joke, says.

In addition, Artur Gurski, a spokesman for Right and Justice, stated last week at the Polish parliament that the election of Barack Obama would “mark the end of the white man civilization.” Spokespeople for the Social and Democratic Party of Poland filed a legal complaint in connection with Gurski’s racist remarks, which, as they said, dishonored the Polish administration. If convicted, the deputy can be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

It is worthy of note that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was also involved in a racist scandal connected with Obama. He described the former Illinois Senator as a handsome and tanned young man. Berlusconi was harshly criticized for those remarks, but he said that it was only a cute compliment that he made for Obama.

"Why are they taking it as something negative? If they have no sense of humour, worse for them," he said. Later, he told Sky TV-24 Ore that his comments were meant to be "cute" and bashed those who disagreed, saying they are "imbeciles, of which there are too many."

Bailout For Dummies - Ask Not What Your Country Can Spend For You, Ask What You Can Spend For Your Country

Say Fred, your excellent portrayal makes it all clear!
Thanks, now I can sleep peacfully knowing my grandchildren will be left holding the bag.
Aah, I didn't say that...Did I ???

Friday, December 19, 2008

Just Another Christmas Story - Author Unknown

Would You Do It?

It's a Wednesday night and you are at a church prayer meeting when somebody runs in from the parking lot yelling, 'Turn on a radio, turn on a radio!'

And while the church listens to a little transistor radio with a microphone stuck up to it, the announcement is made: 'Two women are lying in a Long Island hospital dying from a 'mystery' flu.' Within hours it seems, this thing just sweeps across the country.

People are working around the clock trying to find an antidote. Nothing is working! California , Oregon , Arizona , Florida , Massachusetts .

It's as though it's just sweeping in from the borders.

And then, all of a sudden, the news comes out The code has been broken. A cure can be found. A vaccine can be made. It's going to take the blood of somebody who hasn't been infected, and so, sure enough, all through the Midwest , through all those channels of emergency broadcasting, they ask you to do one simple thing: Go to your downtown hospital and have your blood type taken. That's all we ask of you. When you hear the sirens go off in your neighborhood, please make your way quickly, quietly, and safely to the hospitals.

Sure enough, when you and your family get down there late on that Friday night, there is a long line, and they've got nurses and doctors coming out and pricking fingers and taking blood and putting labels on it.

Your wife and your kids are out there, and they take your blood…type 2-O, and they say, 'Wait here in the parking lot and if we call your name, you can be dismissed and go home.'

You stand around, scared, with your neighbors, wondering what in the world is going on and if this is the end of the world.

Suddenly a young man comes running out of the hospital screaming. He's yel ling a name and waving a clipboard. What? He yells it again! And your son tugs on your jacket and says, 'Daddy, that's me.'

Before you know it, they have grabbed your boy. Wait a minute!

Hold on! And they say, 'It's okay, his blood is clean. His blood is pure.

We want to make sure he doesn't have the disease. We think he has got the right type.' Five tense minutes later, out come the doctors and nurses, crying and hugging one another .... some are even laughing. It's the first time you have seen anybody laugh in a week, and an old doctor walks up to you and says, 'Thank you, sir. Your son's blood type is perfect. It 's clean, it is pure, and we can make the vaccine.' As the word begins to spread all across that parking lot full of folks, people are screaming and praying and laughing and crying.

Then the gray-haired doctor pulls you and your wife aside and says, 'May we see you for moment? We didn't realize that the donor would be a minor and we need .. we need you to sign a consent form.' You begin to sign and then you see that the number of pints of blood to be taken has been left blank.

'H-how many pints?', you ask.

And that is when the old doctor's smile fades and he says, 'We had no idea it would be little child. We weren't prepared. I'm sorry sir, we need it all!'

'But but ... You don't understand.'

'We are talking about the world here.. Please sign. We need it all!' < /i>

'But can't you give him a transfusion?'

'If we had clean blood we would. Can you sign? Would you sign?'

In numb silence, you do..

Then they say, 'Would you like to have a moment with him before we begin?'

Can you walk back? Can you walk back to that room where he sits on a table saying, 'Daddy? Mommy? What's going on?' Can you take his hands and say, 'Son, your mommy and I love you, and we would never ever let anything happen to you that didn't just have to be. Do you understand that?'

And when that old doctor comes back in and says, 'I'm sorry, we've GOT to get started! People all over the world are dying.

Can you leave?'

Can you walk out while he is saying, 'Daddy? Mommy? Daddy?

'Why, why have you forsaken me?'

And then next week, when they have the ceremony to honor your son some folks sleep through it . some folks don't even come because they go to the lake or the seashore . some folks come with a pretentious smile and just 'pretend' to care. Would you want to jump up and say, 'MY SON DIED FOR YOU! DON'T YOU CARE?'

Is that what GOD wants to say? 'MY SON DIED FOR YOU. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I CARE?'

'FATHER, Seeing it from YOUR eyes breaks our hearts. Maybe now we can begin to comprehend the great Love YOU have for us.'

Author unknown

Obama, Murray, Clinton, et al, will deny us of our moral clarity?

Cross posted from Right In A Left World

Senator Murray Joins Clinton Vowing “More Babies Will Be Killed”

As if Patty Murray’s (D. Wa.) efforts at blocking the Veterans Administration efforts at weeding out bogus claims for PTSD weren’t bad enough, which would have freed up both money and services for wounded Veterans truly in need, Patty Murray has joined in with Hillary Clinton (D. NY) vowing to overturn President Bush’s Right Of Conscience rule, pledging “whatever it takes.”

As reported by the Hill, Murray and Clinton, along with other abortion rights groups, claim the rule “will limit women’s access to medical care.”

What Bush’s rule does is protect “physicians, nurses, pharmacists and a host of other classes of healthcare workers [who] refuse to perform, or discuss, abortions, or take part in any other activity about which they have a moral objection.”

How that is denying any woman’s right to kill her unborn baby escapes me. There is a plethora of abortion mills around the country only too willing to help kill unborn babies. Why force those who don’t believe in it to participate against their beliefs?

Murray says,

“It’s clear that the Bush administration’s assault on healthcare protections for women will continue up until their very last day in office. This is the kind of desperate, ideologically driven politics that helped convince Americans it’s time for change.”

Does she offer any consideration to the healthcare of the unborn? Is it an “assault” to grant protection for others to follow their moral conscience?

Bear in mind, there remains many others all too willing to perform the procedure. No one is forcing them not to.

Do not others have a few rights to their conscience in America any longer? Do we need Democrats forcing every aspect of their sickness on everyone, denying us of our moral clarity?

Is it a sick mind that is outraged when a mother kills a newborn, yet is gleeful if she killed it two hours earlier in a clinic?

The left claims it isn’t a baby, but a “zygote” or “fetus,” clearing their conscience of killing a human being. But, it is a human being. Granted, it can’t survive outside the womb, but even after birth, can it survive without motherly care?

How sadistic is it that those who propose penalizing mothers who smoke or don’t eat right, would also support her should she decide to have that life sucked out of her womb?

Murray craftily hides her love of killing babies with statements like,
“Under the next administration and Congress, we will reverse this policy and ensure that the health of patients always comes first. I will work with President-elect Obama to explore every possible option to ensure women continue to have access to the healthcare they need.”

Killing unborn babies on a whim is “healthcare?” Again, women that choose to abort their children still may do so. The new rule does not regulate them; it protects the few that hold a moral objection to participating.

Does Murray propose or support firing any who do not agree with killing the unborn? Again, don’t others have rights in America?

Allow me to say here, I also do not support those that use anti-abortion protests to denigrate women who make that choice. I feel the answer is through education and a return to somewhat of a moral lifestyle, but that is just me.

We are told we “shove our beliefs down their throats,” but isn’t the left shoving their beliefs down our throats if they do not allow others to exercise their moral conscience to not participate in abortions?

I have yet to understand the left’s fascination with killing the unborn. If they feel it gives a woman sexual freedom, it does not. It only frees them up to be used sexually by men who don’t really care for the woman and don’t want a baby.

Have the Democrats moved us so far into Socialism that we may no longer exercise our choice? Will they eventually formulate some proposal on who may or may not have a child, forcing all others to undergo abortion?

Wake up, Washington. Do we need to keep a Senator who doesn’t respect one person’s choice, but demands another’s be respected and even engaged in whether they accept in their personal belief or not?

How much further will our individual rights be stripped away now under total Democrat control?

If they cannot respect that some don’t wish to participate in aborting a baby, I shudder to imagine.

The Sounds Of Boston ...Hey Menino, ya bum!

"America is no longer a Christian nation" - Barack Obama
And now we have to listen to this! (see video below)

Growing up just thirty-five miles south, Boston was always an interesting place to visit. The sounds of the big city (at least for me it was big) were the sounds of vehicle traffic, street vendors, and Irish cops. We used to go to the ball games...the Boston Red Sox and the Boston Braves... and the street vendors selling various sausages and souvenirs was always something to look forward to. We even made some noise inside the park, "Hey Williams, ya bum!" That was at Fenway and of course Ted Williams was no bum, but we were just kids and having a ball. Then there was Braves Field, "Hey Johnny, ya bum!" and of course Johnny Sain was no bum either. Over at the harbor there was no sound greater than the whistle of the ferry that would take us to Nantasket Beach for a fun day at the amusement park.

As the years went by and I attended various schools in Boston trying to earn college credits one subject-one semester at a time, there was the traffic noise. It wasn't after hours traffic for in Boston I don't think there is such a thing as after hours traffic. Once the working folk commuters went home then all the evening students came into Boston from the surrounding communities...I was just one of thousands! And God forbid I get in the way of a taxi driver...beeeeep, beeeeep! "Get out of the way ya bum!"

Now there is a new sound that comes from no Paul Revere...and it's not "The British are coming!" You might want to use some ear plugs for what you are about to hear, and, "No! It's not Mumbles Menino mumbling his sweet nothings!" (If you haven't heard of 'Mumbles' yet, try calling the Mayor's Office!) "Hey Menino! Ya bum!" "The Muslims are coming!" "The Muslims are coming!

Related stories...and interesting comments (click on the links below)

Boston Mosque to Broadcast Amplified Call to Prayer Against Previous Assurances

Hamtramck Mosque Begins Call To Prayer Broadcasts

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

The Two C's...and "Mums" the word!

Cross posted from the Wall Street Journal

Obama Was Mum On Illinois Corruption

The president-elect could use his bully pulpit to drive a clean-up.


This week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on charges that he conspired to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat, among other misdeeds. At first the president-elect tried to distance himself from the issue: "It is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment." But it quickly became clear that Mr. Obama would have to say more, and yesterday he called for Mr. Blagojevich to resign and for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat.

What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media's "almost willful" fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago's political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama's Chicago connections.

To date, Mr. Obama's approach to Illinois corruption has been to congratulate himself for dodging association with it. "I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics," he told the Chicago Tribune last spring. At the time, Mr. Obama was being grilled over news that he bought his house through a land deal involving Tony Rezko, a political fixer who was later convicted on 16 corruption counts. Rezko is mentioned dozens of times in the 76-page criminal complaint against Mr. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics. "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News months ago. Though Mr. Obama did support ethics reforms as a state senator, Mr. Stewart noted that he's "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

One reason for Mr. Obama's reticence may be his close relationship with the powerful Illinois senate president Emil Jones. Mr. Jones was a force in Mr. Obama's rise. In 2003, the two men talked about the state's soon-to-be vacant U.S. Senate seat. As Mr. Jones has recounted the conversation, Mr. Obama told him "You can make the next U.S. senator." Mr. Jones replied, "Got anybody in mind?" "Yes," Mr. Obama said. "Me."

Starting in 2003, Mr. Jones worked to burnish Mr. Obama's credentials by making him lead sponsor of bills including a watered-down ban on gifts to lawmakers. Most of Mr. Obama's legislative accomplishments came as result of his association with Mr. Jones.

In 2002, Mr. Obama turned up to help Mr. Blagojevich, a staunch ally of Mr. Jones, win the governor's mansion. Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, told The New Yorker earlier this year that six years ago he and Mr. Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two [other participants]."

Mr. Blagojevich won, but before long, problems surfaced. In 2004, Zalwaynaka Scott, the governor's inspector general, said his administration's efforts to evade merit-selection laws exposed "not merely an ignorance of the law, but complete and utter contempt for the law." Nonetheless, Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Blagojevich's re-election in 2006.

This spring, many Democrats were so disgusted with Mr. Blagojevich that state House Speaker Michael Madigan drafted a memo on why Democrats should impeach Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Madigan's "talking points" compared the corruption going on in the state to a tumor that must be removed.

But Mr. Madigan's move drew a rebuke from Mr. Jones. The Chicago Sun-Times story at the time quoted Mr. Jones saying he thought it was wrong for the speaker to "promote the impeachment of a Democratic Governor. . . Impeachment is unwarranted in my opinion, and should not be used as a political tool."

Many people were curious who Mr. Obama would side with in the dispute. Would it be with those Democrats who wanted to move aggressively against an apparently corrupt governor or with his old Chicago ally, Mr. Jones, who preferred to wait? Mr. Obama did neither. He kept silent. (I emailed the Obama campaign about Mr. Blagojevich's problems in June, but my question was ignored.)

Fed says, "No!" "Who's running this show?"

Fed Still Not Saying Who Got Money

Friday, December 12, 2008 4:37 PM

By: Elaine Barr

Four months after Bloomberg News asked for the names of recipients of $2 trillion in taxpayer dollars, the Federal Reserve finally said no.

Bloomberg filed a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 emergency lending programs and asked what assets the Fed accepted as collateral.

According to a story posted today by Bloomberg, the Fed responded on Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, however, said in September that they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.

“Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure,” Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed’s Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News and reported by the Columbia Journalism Review.

One of the harms might be public knowledge of just how devalued those assets are right now, point out critics of the Fed loan program.

"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take, and that's what they don't want us to know," Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at ICP Capital, told Bloomberg.

As of Nov. 6, total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time. It rose by 138 percent — $1.23 trillion — in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA, Bloomberg noted.

The lawsuit doesn't seek monetary damages. The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public.

"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the news service.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Can you spell R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N ? Before or after January 2009 ?

The Age Of Tension: Beware The Special Events
Cross posted from Pat Dollard

December 13th, 2008 Posted By Pat Dollard.


World Net Daily:

New rules published in the Federal Register would allow certain civilians to call American soldiers into action inside the U.S. to prevent environmental damage or respond to “special events” and “other domestic activities.”

The alarming warning is contained in proposed rules published last week for the Department of Defense’s “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” plan.

Under the U.S. Constitution, soldiers inside the country essentially are tasked with the responsibility of quelling “insurrections” and repelling invasions as well as making sure each state has access to the republican form of government.

But the new rules go far beyond that, essentially establishing a plan to activate the U.S. military inside the country to deal with social issues under provisions that appear to be devoid of any connection to the Constitution, according to an expert.

“I think the thing that’s of concern with respect to this set of rules is it appears to have no constitutional foundation, no reference whatsoever of any constitutional structure. It’s totally missing,” said Herb Titus, a onetime candidate for vice president for the Constitution Party and a longtime constitutional professor.

Herb Titus

Titus, whose biography includes teaching at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools and service as founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University, reviewed the federal proposal at WND’s request.

The multi-page plan is to establish policies and assign responsibilities “regarding military support for civilian law enforcement.”

“Who Killed the Constitution?” Here’s a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is … dead

The plan states, “This proposed rule will allow civil authorities access to the correct procedures when they are seeking assistance from the Department by establishing updated policy guidance and assigning the correct responsibilities within the Department for the Defense for support of civil authorities in response to requests for assistance for domestic emergencies, designated law enforcement support, special events, and other domestic activities.

Titus, who has testified before Congress on constitutional issues and is authorized to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, said, “All of this is based on the assumption that government was created for the purpose of preventing things from happening in our lives.”

A plain reading of the law, he said, would allow drastically different actions than what Americans probably expect.

“Instead of prosecuting somebody charged with murder, we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives,” he said, citing the plan’s apparent permission for the government to restrain liberties when there is concern about potential damages or injury.

A contact at the Department of Defense did not return a WND call requesting comment on the proposal.

But the plan itself says the person calling for soldiers’ actions could be either a military official or civilian leader. And it renews questions about Barack Obama’s stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Even Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, says there will be a mandatory “force” for Americans.

“If you’re worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes,” Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News.

WND also reported when the official website for Obama,, announced he would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposal. The new wording reads, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July “Call to Service” speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set” and needs a “civilian national security force.”

A video of his comments is here:

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

The newly proposed Department of Defense rules leave a virtually wide open door for what could be cited as a reason for military intervention.

It defines “Imminently Serious Conditions” as “Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of a military commander or responsible DoD civilian official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, to safeguard public health or safety, or to prevent or mitigate great property or environmental damage.”

Repeatedly the rules cite “special events.”

“Special event support to non-governmental organizations is a DSCA activity,” it states under policy issues.

That, Titus contemplated, could even be a Democratic National Convention in Denver.

He said it’s important to keep the foundations of the nation in mind and that many of the principles of justice and government for America were derived from the pulpits of the 1700s.

“If you go back and look at Romans 13, the civil government was authorized to punish evil doing, not to prevent it from happening,” Titus said.

The new proposal specifically states it applies to a “potential or actual domestic crisis” and even confirms that conditions not always will allow “prior authority” before “action is necessary for effective response.”

“All this is really designed to do is legitimize by rule essentially a broader discretionary power,” Titus said.

It also reverses the role of the boss, he said, because of the repeated references to a situation “manager.”

“It’s the image that’s being created. A manager. You’re supposed to do what the manager tells you. Contrast that with civil authorities who are our servants. They’re supposed to do what we want them to do,” he said.

Many state constitutions were specific in that area, he noted. Virginia’s, for example, declared that all powers derive from the people, and in Pennsylvania the constitution specifically reserved the right to regulate police to the people.

Although many would argue such military occupation of the U.S. would be reserved only for such “emergencies,” the Washington Post reported just a few days ago on plans by the U.S. military to have 20,000 uniformed troops stationed inside the U.S. by 2011.

The plan has been lauded by some in the Bush administration and Congress as a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism, despite concerns over how it would undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

At word of the plan, the ACLU warned of expansions in “presidential and military authority,” while the Cato Institute called it a case of “creeping militarization,” according to the Post.

Gene Healy, Cato vice president, told the newspaper, “There’s a notion that whenever there’s an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green … and that’s at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.”

The DoD says it will accept comments on the proposal until Feb. 2 at the federal government’s link.

19 Responses (these responses are from Pat Dollard's website, feel free to leave comments in Storm'n Norm'n comment section)

  1. Kurt(the infidel)

    nope, fuck this shit! i love our military men and women but i also put the constitution above all things. they are not to operate on US soil and especially not in the ways Obama seems to be hinting towards. our military does not want to operate on US soil and i believe that if we were to revolt they would break rank and join us. i dont know about the rest of you but i will not stand for this.

  2. Dr. Jerry

    Not good, my friends, not good at all!

  3. T-Bagg

    Okay… Fuck around on my watch.

  4. tps

    Suddenly, my thoughts and musings published a month or so back on this site, followed by my two-hour appearance on Pat’s radio program, no longer seem as far fetched. \

    It is rarely the individual pieces (this law, that law, this regulation, that court case) one must worry about. Rather, it is what happens when someone with the reins of power realizes what the mosaic will look like when these pieces are assembled.

    It is happening faster than even I anticipated.


  5. Vanessa

    I don’t understand why they took their weapons in the video.
    It was their property and they were entitled to defend it.

    This is bullshit.

    This country of my founding fathers is nothing but an illusion.

  6. Vanessa

    the aslu warns…………those sacks of shit have been destroying America…… they want to warn

    Some things make me go ballistic.

    We are so rotted we do not even know the depth of our rot.

    It is frightening.

  7. littlefox ( in St. Croix building Ft. Freedom one prayer at a time)

    :arrow: Dr. Jerry, tps

    What can we do?

  8. Hardball1911(Self Proclaimed Oligarch)

    In the document, which is located at (sorry for the long link not sure how to attach a link to a word here…) the definition of “special event” bugs the living shit out of me. It states:

    “Special Event. An international or
    domestic event, contest, activity, or
    meeting, which by its very nature, or by
    specific statutory or regulatory
    authority, may require security, safety,
    and/or other logistical support or
    assistance fro the Department of
    Defense.” (The misspelling is part of the document and attests to the rapidity at which it was thrown together. Not the only misspelling I caught in the document.)

    By including this definition, the writer of this document (undoubtedly to prepare for political security should there be a “domestic incident” involving a revolt, mass uprising, etc.) has effectively dismissed the Posse Comitatus Act. Further reading of the document demonstrates an expansion of privilege of DoD authority. In 185.4, paragraph C, allows authority where none exists outside the direction of POTUS or Secretary of Defense. What this effectively does is weaken the direct accountability of the POTUS and SoD by allowing other parties to proclaim the need and direction of military support for civilian policing policies, absolving the POTUS and SoD from direct accountability.

    In 185.4, paragraphs e and f, the responsibility of the DoD for the use of military personnel for domestic force is absolved from the POTUS, SoD, and DoD, and widens the effective authority of lower level DoD command where none exists, which in essence is a method of spreading blame should this new found authority be abused at a future point in history.

    Funny, but the socialist/liberal/communist activists protested the occurrences of death at Kent state, yet they perpetuate their ability to “pay back” by this very document.

    This should be seen as a power move, in the attempt to gain control over military response to civil unrest, in the event that an uprising of resistance takes place. They are preparing for a revolution, and preparing to use the military to squash it before it can begin. Anything deemed a “special event” as defined above can trigger this, and Posse Comitatus Act be damned. Absolution of responsibility is taken away and spread throughout the ranks for the event that it is proven to be unconstitutional and punishment is meted out. Read that as: “Plausible Denial”.

    Our ability as citizens to do exactly what our Founding Fathers did in replacing their form of government is being checked right before our eyes, according to the agenda of the political parties. It is, after all, both “main” parties that would allow this to happen without challenge. There is an air of “ruling class” about this country once again that has been absent between (in my estimate) 1776 to the 1990’s. This air of “ruling class” has been evidenced by the actions of our “elected officials” including the tightening of restriction and regulation of firearms, freedom of speech with acts such as “The Fairness Doctrine”, and many other examples that I could site. Our “ruling class” have enjoyed amnesty from prosecution criminally and civilly for a very long time now, as Mary Jo Kopechne could attest if she were still a viable human being. It is my belief that only revolution could cure us of this disease, either real or pseudo by ballot. (A pseudo-revolution by ballot has been proven as ineffective and corruptible, as the accuracy and integrity of the election cycle can be manipulated, therefore, real revolution will be, at some point, necessary and just.) It is also my opinion that the amnesties so widely enjoyed by our “ruling class” should disintegrate. It should be that we provide law regarding the service to one’s country as a politician holding that politician’s actions to a higher standard than the lowest common citizen. All laws passed by the politicians in office should include punishment for all infractions regardless of “class status”, meaning that if a politician breaks the laws he or she is directly responsible for the implementation of, he or she should face punishment more severe than any other citizen. If a fine of $1000 is written as punishment for a “common citizen’s” infraction, then a politician who breaks the very same law(s) should face a punishment 10 times as high, and immediate removal from office should take place. Parking tickets included… One can not reasonably expect others to obey laws that one’s own self can or will not possibly obey.

    This is a potential threat to our very way of lives, and it will be passed along into policy because there are too few of us who actually get it.


    :arrow: Kurt
    At least a large portion of them will. The ONLY time the military should be allowed to operate on American soil is to repel an invading force…that’s it. There’s a reason we have police departments that’s to take care of domestic criminals and insurrections. And the fact that more and more police departments are rearming and refitting themselves to better handle criminals, they’re becoming a lighter version of a military force.

    Not to mention this is fucking illegal.

  10. Paslode

    Now if you were walking the streets brandishing a gun I ‘might’ understand what happened….hard to tell who is good and bad. But I never quite understood why the Govenment felt it nesscessary to confiscate the guns of folks who decided to wait it out on their personal property.

    If I had my tinfoil hat on I might say it was a test run (just like our Islamic Buddies do) for Government abuse of power just like Randy Weaver and Waco.

    And considering how messed up everything is and the possibility of the mess getting far worse with losing homes, going hungry in the streets….the is a potential of civil unrest grows by the day and I don’t see Uncle Scam looking out for the best interest of me and my country.

    Our politicans will attempt to keep their power and jobs by any means. :evil:

  11. Hardball1911(Self Proclaimed Oligarch)

    The following was a comment left by me on the federal website allowing “feedback and comment” from the general public:

    “The DSCA must be prevented from implementation. This documented policy is in direct conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act and in direct violation of the very Constitution that military personnel have taken an oath to defend.

    Bear in mind, all military enlisted personnel take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Their oath includes following the orders of officers appointed over them, and from the President of The United States, however there exists no regulation in the UCMJ regarding the domestic use of force by military personnel as a military engagement. This was not an oversight, this was handled by the Posse Comitatus Act directly, which prevents FEDERAL MILITARY AUTHORITY from taking policing action which is reserved to the states, individually.

    Understanding that domestic tranquility and security is necessary, it is highly counter productive to establish a means for military force that is to be used as a local policing agency absolved from state and local authority and accountability. The usurpation and break down of direct authority and accountability from the POTUS and SoD, by allowing others in the “command structure” to authorize domestic deployment is a direct attempt to absolve those who should be responsible for answering the tough questions that inevitably will arise upon the deployment of such a force should the privilege be abused. Nobody would argue against the deployment of National Guard service members in the event of a natural disaster such as a hurricane, earthquake, fire, etc., but should the deployment of National Guard or standing military forces be used domestically for purposes such as, say, “The Democratic National Convention” (Or Republican for that matter.), as defined in the “special event” clause, as a policing agency can and will be deemed to be an attempt to intimidate common citizens away from demonstrating their first amendment rights peacefully. Kent state is a prime example, which was dealt with appropriately, however unfortunately too late it was. Anyone remember that one?

    The DSCA is a direct attempt at usurping standing law that deems it against Constitutional premise in regard to the authority and implementation of the military. It is to the states that this authority belongs, and it is with the states that it should stay. Arbitrary “special events” provides potential for abuse, whether widespread or singular, and whether widespread or singular, one abuse is beyond logical comprehension as far as willingly allowing it to happen.”

  12. tclu1308

    I hate to break it to these incredibly dimwitted socialist dictator types but if they ever tried to impose some sort of martial law within our borders they may well be shocked to find that the greatest military force the world has ever known, which is composed 100% by American volunteers, might suddenly refuse to take orders. Not saying that the worst case scenario wouldn’t be a bloody mess, but if I were to wager on who came out on top I would bet heavily on the freedom loving men and women who are confidant in their ideas of liberty and justice and understand that living amongst brain-dead zombies is possibly worse than death. :wink:

  13. Professor Bill

    This is extremely troubling. Someone asked what we can do, IMHO the long term action is for people of our mindset to take a paycut and go into education and get into all areas of the government, everything from school board to congress. I felt a calling and have left the private sector, taken a paycut and am a full time instructor at a local college. Every day I wake up I beleive I can make a difference and influence and re-educate the youngsters minds.

    IMHO the short term action is buy a lot of guns and ammo and keep a very close eye on things. Write letters, talk to people, call into talk radio shows and sound as inteligent and articulate as possible, educate your kids and do not assume the educational system is doing it. Bottom line is try to persuade as many people as possible.

    If Obama or some other despot were to try some type of action against the American people he could be overwhelmed with force. If just 5% of the American public decided to act as one, whatever that would entail, that would be a 15 million person action. That would completely overwhelm any “force” Obama came up with.

    This is precisely the reason why every home must have to ability to defend itself against bad buys. If just 1% of a city decides to be lawless at the same time that will overwhelm the cops, case in point was the LA riots in 92. I live in Central California and during the riots there wasn’t a cop to be found around here, not highway patrol and city forces were running at minimum staff levels to put additional officers to help LAPD. Now just imagine if it was 5% and organized, they would never know what hit them.

    I can’t beleive we’re having this conversation but for me its about being prepared. I recently bought a huge gun safe and ther were others twice as big as mine and the guy told me they are moving em out like hot cakes. One to two full semi trucks a month. Other people are a little spooked as well.

    Just my 0.02$ worth.

  14. German Dragon

    :arrow: tps

    As regards the “mosaic,” the part I call “Frankenstein” has been under construction since Bush 41. And what is Frankenstein? Imagine the surveillance infrastructures of the old Soviet Union and Romania extended to include everything that generates any sort of electronic receipt, and amplified by the analysis capabilities of advanced computing technology.

    The key phrase in this article was uttered by Mr. Titus: “… we should profile people who are likely to commit murder, round them up and prevent them from endangering lives …” That is precisely what Frankenstein has been doing for quite a few years, albeit imperfectly.

    Add to this article an as-yet unreported bombshell: According to, the USA is now only two more states away from having the required 2/3 majority under Article 5 to hold a “Constitutional Convention” in which our Constitution can be repealed or rewritten in its entirety — just as America has elected her first Marxist president and the Congress is controlled by radical Lefties.

    So, this explains why these “rules” are now appearing in the Federal Register, along with the surveillance infrastructure to profile EVERYONE in this country who would likely revolt against a wholesale repealing of our rights under the Constitution and spearheaded by a Marxist/Communist president.

    These are the pieces of the mosaic you describe.

  15. Professor Bill

    If “they” had to round up just 10%, and 50% of that 10% said no, “they” wouldn’t be able to deal with it. Especially if you figure there would be another 10-15% of our society that would be sympathetic to their cause.

    One of the best things about American society is the extreme independence streak that runs through it. We are a nation of rebels who don’t like other people telling us what the fuck to do. A shitstorm would break out like one never seen before.

    We can never ever surrender our guns.

  16. Mike Mose

    This policy was implemented for the Loss of wealth and rights via the financial meltdown and the constitutional convention run by Pelosi, Reid and ZERO.

    Protect your women and children. May God protect those that love Him.

  17. AFITgrad86

    :arrow: TCLU1308 .. “the greatest military force the world has ever known, …. might suddenly refuse to take orders”

    That is exactly what happened in the showdown in Moscow when Gorbachev tried to use the military against Yeltsin in 1991.

    People should never underestimate the patriotism of the military or the power hunger of the politician.

  18. Jon

    I’m trying to remember where I read it recently, but the primary architect for this change in the military mission statement is none other than Robert Gates. That’s the main reason Obama is keeping him on. I’m off to buy more ammo.

  19. Norm

    WOW !!!

    Are we in trouble or are we in trouble ???

    Can you spell R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N ???

Annie Get Your Gun May Be Music To Your Ear But When Obama Gets Your Gun It Will Be Your Worst Nightmare

Cross posted from Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Obama’s Empty Second Amendment Promises

The Skepticism Grows

“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the Second Amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.” — President Elite Elect, Barack Obama

Take the word of Obama’s website when he promises to renew the scary-looking weapon ban: Crime and Law Enforcement. Most of the rifles and guns Americans have been buying since the election would be banned under this provision.

The following is from a comminiqué I received from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne La Pierre (I added the photos and highlights):

Five Attacks on the Second Amendment

emanuel.jpgObama’s FIRST attack on YOU: Appointing Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff. In Congress, Emanuel earned an “F” rating from NRA, and while working in the Clinton Administration, he was known as the “point man on gun control.” He is an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment and will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.

clinton.jpgObama’s SECOND attack on YOU: If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State, she’ll rip the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. She’ll be our nation’s top diplomat with the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass, and Obama will sign, a global gun ban treaty that will surrender our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.

daschle.jpgObama’s THIRD attack on YOU: Nominating ex-Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an avowed enemy of NRA, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. NRA was responsible for defeating Daschle when he ran in South Dakota for re-election to the Senate. If Daschle is confirmed, he could hold the ultimate power to declare guns a “public health menace” and regulate away our essential liberties.

holder1.jpgObama’s FOURTH attack on YOU: Nominating Eric Holder to be Attorney General. As former Assistant Attorney General, Holder was a key architect and vocal advocate for the Clinton era’s sweeping gun ban agenda. He supported national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks, and ending gun shows as we know them.

Just recently, Holder opposed the District of Columbia’s Heller decision that declared the Second Amendment an individual right. Holder also called for reviving the Clinton gun bans and, as Attorney General, would fight in court to prevent the landmark Heller decision from being made applicable to state and local governments.

Worst of all, if Holder is confirmed as the nation’s top law-enforcement officer, he would control BATFE and wield enormous power to harass gun owners and sue America’s arms makers out of existence.

Obama’s FIFTH attack on YOU: In the job application for the Obama Administration, he made it clear that gun owners are second-class citizens and told 80 million gun owners not to even bother applying for a job. In the “White House Personnel Data Questionnaire” he asked:

“Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

This chilling notice to gun owners-that they are not welcome to serve in his Administration, shows the deep hostility for Americans’ Second Amendment Freedoms that Obama and his Administration have in their hearts.

On its face, that question endorses gun registration, a mandate in only five states in our nation, and buys into the anti-gun premise that firearms are inherently dangerous and gun owners are prone to misusing them.

That’s an outrageous mindset, especially for the President-elect whose sworn duty will be to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including our right to keep and bear arms. Obama CLEARLY wants to make gun registration the law of the land. First for employees under his control…AND THEN FOR YOU, Working with a Congress dominated by gun haters like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Charles Schumer!!!

Rubbing salt in gun owner wounds is the Brady Campaign, which just issued a completely bogus poll claiming that two-thirds of the Americans-including 60% of all gun owners-favor gun registration, licensing of firearm owners, and other sweeping restrictions on our firearm freedoms!

Add it all up and you have the potential for a Second Amendment disaster that’s unlike any other NRA members have ever battled.

The election may be over, but there is still a massive Public Relations Campaign to wage. Stay involved!