The Trojan Horse President

[siboneyes]

part 2

He would use the Justice Department to undermine the rule of law. Here are some ways he could do that:

—Attempt to close down the Guantanamo Bay military prison and bring terrorist suspects into U.S. civil courts where they can claim constitutional immunities.

—Reignite racial animosity by dropping voter intimidation charges against radicals such as the New Black Panther Party thugs outside a Philadelphia polling place.

—Order his attorney general to flout the Constitution’s requirement to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” by announcing that the administration will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While doing this, he would play coy with the media about his “evolving” views on same-sx “marriage” and facilitate homosexual activists’ other key goals, such as a federal hate crimes law.

—Have the civil rights enforcement staff ignore voter fraud allegations by citizens who happen to be white.

—Ignore blatant violations by “sanctuary cities” while suing Arizona and threatening other states that dare to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

—Threaten states that tighten laws against voter fraud, such as requiring a photo ID. Without evidence, accuse them of trying to “suppress” the minority vote.

-Ship hundreds of taxpayer-purchased firearms to Mexican drug gangs in order to frame law- abiding gun sellers in Texas. When the “Fast and Furious” weapons are used to kill U.S. and Mexican lawmen, the attorney general will pretend he didn’t know about the program until very recently and is shocked, shocked! The attorney general will claim that critics of this criminally insane policy are motivated by racial animus against him and the president. After all, this worked when anyone questioned why the president’s college and medical records were sealed, or why he attended a Marxist reverend’s church for 20 years and hung out with known terrorists.

He would appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a “living Constitution,” which means they can ignore its plain meaning when it interferes with their ideological agenda.

He would stack the National Labor Relations Board with union hacks who will do unspeakable things such as order a major company (Boeing) not to open a new factory in a right-to-work state (South Carolina) in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. If he got away with that, he would go ahead and strengthen a crony socialist system reminiscent of Mussolini’s fascist Italy or Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela that subsidizes “winners” such as Solyndra.

Finally, throughout his tenure, he would employ the Marxist rhetoric of class warfare, blame “the wealthy” and make more Americans dependent on government checks. He would sucker Republican leaders into secret meetings and emerge to accuse them of wanting to raise taxes on all but the rich.

As I began to flesh out this novel, I decided it was a waste of time. Good fiction has to ring true to life, and the hamster part just won’t wash.

Robert Knight Robert Knight is an author, senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a frequent contributor to Townhall.

[nokose]

por Raven Clabough

14 de diciembre de 2011

EXTRACTO:

“Any issues that the Obama administration purported to have with the Senate-passed version of the bill, none of which seemingly had anything to do with the indefinite detention of Americans, appear to have been settled in those secret meetings, including the provision that would have cut out the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the custody and prosecution of terror suspects.

The Obama administration’s veto threat was not due to the indefinite detention provision. Recent revelations by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) indicate that the White House actually insisted that any language exempting American citizens from the indefinite detention provision be removed.” (el énfasis es mío)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/1019​0-lawmakers-submit-letter-opposing-ndaas-indefini...  

[nokose]

por Raven Clabough

14 de diciembre de 2011

EXTRACTO:

“Any issues that the Obama administration purported to have with the Senate-passed version of the bill, none of which seemingly had anything to do with the indefinite detention of Americans, appear to have been settled in those secret meetings, including the provision that would have cut out the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the custody and prosecution of terror suspects.

The Obama administration’s veto threat was not due to the indefinite detention provision. Recent revelations by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) indicate that the White House actually insisted that any language exempting American citizens from the indefinite detention provision be removed.” (el énfasis es mío)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/1019​0-lawmakers-submit-letter-opposing-ndaas-indefini...  

[nokose]

Obama, Congress back legalization of a police state

por Bill Van Auken

16 de diciembre de 2011

EXTRACTO:

The US Senate’s approval Thursday of legislation allowing the indefinite military detention of US citizens without charges or trials marks a new stage in a decade of uninterrupted assault on the most fundamental democratic and constitutional rights.

The Senate’s 86-to-13 vote in favor of the legislation followed its approval in the House of Representatives Wednesday. It also came after the announcement by the White House that President Barack Obama would not exercise his power to veto the measure, which is included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $662 billion package to fund Washington’s war machine.

The bill mandates that anyone accused of being a terrorist be “detained without trial until the end of hostilities” in a military prison. While it requires such treatment for non-citizens, it authorizes it for citizens arrested on US soil, if the president decides they merit this extra-constitutional punishment.

This piece of legislation enshrines in law the worst of the crimes carried out under the Bush administration and provides legal sanction for an American military-police state. The sweeping bipartisan support it received in both houses of Congress has provided definitive proof that there exists no constituency for the defense of democratic rights within the American political establishment and its two big business parties.

For that matter, the passage of a law that shreds the founding principles of the American republic has raised barely a murmur of concern from the corporate-controlled mass media. They have no intention of making this a matter of public debate. For millions of American working people, however, the action is of the gravest importance.

The Senate’s vote came precisely 220 years to the day after the passage of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, on December 15, 1791. 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/pers-d16​.shtml 

[nokose]

¡¡TRES HURRAS POR EL PARTIDO LIBERTARIO !! (AUNQUE YO RECHAZO SU FILOSOFÍA ECONÓMICA..)

EXTRACTOS :

"The Obama administration has already claimed that the president has the authority to kill Americans overseas, if he believes they are terrorists.

"Now, in the latest National Defense Authorization Act, Congress is trying to give the president power to imprison Americans indefinitely, without charges or respect for habeas corpus, if he claims they are terrorists.

"Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have already joined hands to pass the bill.

"This contempt for our rights is outrageous. Any member of Congress who supports that provision is grossly violating his or her oath to uphold the Constitution...

"That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/indefinite-d​etention-provisions-are-wrong

[nokose]

EL GREMIO NACIONAL DE ABOGADOS CONDENA LA LADN  

http://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/nlg-condemns​-ndaa-provisions/

EXTRACTO:

Our principled opposition is based on the:

1.         United States Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 which enshrines the privilege to petition for habeas corpus;

2.         United States Constitution’s Article 3, Section 3 which provides those charged with treason heightened due process protections;

3.         United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure;

4.         United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition of deprivations of liberty without due process;

5.         United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, to knowledge of the charges, to the assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses;

6.         Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has signed, and which holds that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” (Article 9); those who are arrested are entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal (Article 10), and all those charged with a penal offence are presumed innocent, and have the right to a public trial and all of the guarantees necessary for a defense (Article 11); and

7.         International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, and which provides in article 9 (1): “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

[nokose]

http://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/nlg-condemns​-ndaa-provisions/

EXTRACTO:

Our principled opposition is based on the:

1.         United States Constitution’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 which enshrines the privilege to petition for habeas corpus;

2.         United States Constitution’s Article 3, Section 3 which provides those charged with treason heightened due process protections;

3.         United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure;

4.         United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition of deprivations of liberty without due process;

5.         United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, to knowledge of the charges, to the assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses;

6.         Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has signed, and which holds that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” (Article 9); those who are arrested are entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal (Article 10), and all those charged with a penal offence are presumed innocent, and have the right to a public trial and all of the guarantees necessary for a defense (Article 11); and

7.         International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, and which provides in article 9 (1): “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

[siboneyes]

On a $4M Vacation, Michelle Seeks $3 From Backers

by Keith Koffler on December 30, 2011

Speaking from her paradisical $4 million Hawaii vacation, Mrs. Obama wants to know: Do any of President Obama’s supporters have $3 to spare for his reelection?

This is approximately like coming upon Warren Buffett on a street corner with a McDonald’s cup asking if he can have 15 cents.

Michelle’s request was part of an email sent to the Obama 2012 list today.

Over the next 11 months we’ve got an organization to grow, voters to register, and people to get fired up.

I hope you’ll close out this year by donating $3 or more now to help make sure we’re ready for the next one . . .

Thank you so much, and happy new year,

Michelle



The obscene juxtaposition of the first lady on a $4 million vacation while asking what would have to be middle to low income earners for three bucks – who else would they be targeting with such an appeal? – is yet another example of lack of perspective the Obamas seem to be gaining while in power.

Mrs. Obama takes extravagant vacations to Spain and southern Africa. The president golfs obsessively and is currently dining at Honolulu’s ritziest restaurants. All while asking their fellow Americans to “sacrifice” during this time of not plenty.

And they blow $4 million – mostly taxpayers’ money – on a vacation, while wondering if the small people can come up with $3.

What about renting a beach house next year at the Jersey shore? I mean, if we’re all going to sacrifice.

For the first time in my life, I am really proud of this country.

"Let the little people eat their peas, right Barry? Someone want to pass some more of that $100/lb Wagyu Beef?"

[sirjohn]

Chief House Investigator Says Holder and/or Obama are Doomed

godfatherpolitics.com ^ | Da Tagliare



If you’ve ever watched a beagle track down a rabbit or a bloodhound track down an convect, you might get a glimpse into the workings of Rep Darrell Issa, a Republican from California.

Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This basically means that he heads the main investigative body used to delve into the Obama administration and their dealings. Because of his bulldog tenacity of not letting go until the job is done, many on Capitol Hill refer to Issa as Mr Subpoena.

In an interview given over the weekend, Issa said, “If the [Obama] administration continues to have full confidence in a failed administration by Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, then ultimately the administration is going to be doomed. Eric Holder seems to have the full confidence of the president, and I can’t understand why.”

Joining Issa in his search for truth in the Fast and Furious scandal is Senate Judiciary Committee member, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa.

As Issa was stating the impending doom of US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann joined the growing list of Congressional members who are calling for Holder’s immediate resignation. That list is not at 52, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see that number rise to 100 by the end of the month.

This may surprise many of you who have been reading my blogs on here, but I disagree with the members of Congress calling for Holder’s resignation. Just demanding his resignation is not really holding the nation’s top cop responsible for his flagrant disregard of the law.

Instead of his resignation, I would file criminal charges against him for dereliction of duty, willful failure to carry out his sworn duty to uphold ALL of the nation’s laws, preferential treatment of convicted felons based upon their race, religion and political status and impersonating a US Attorney General. I would tap into the minds of some of the nation’s best legal experts and throw as many criminal charges against the man as possible.

Eric Holder is no different than any other mob boss or crime syndicate leader. Rather than following the law, he makes his own law as he operates an organization that likewise has no respect for the law. And like any other moss boss, he deserves to spend the rest of his miserable life in jail with the rest of the criminal world.

[sirjohn]

Rasmussen: Dem party affiliation at all-time low

Hot Air.com ^ | January 2, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

CASTRO FUE EL HIJO BOBO QUE LLEVO A LA UNION SOVIETICA A LA BANCARROTA Y SU DESOLUCION... OBAMA CLAVO UNA DAGA EN EL CORAZON DEL PARTIDO DEL KKK

Perhaps the report of a general retreat on party affiliation was a bit exaggerated — at least for one of the two parties. Rasmussen’s latest monthly surveyof 15,000 respondents for party affiliation shows Republicans gaining more than a percentage point from November to December and nearing the year-long high, while Democrats declined to the lowest level in the Rasmussen series:

The number of Republicans in the country increased by a percentage point in December, while the number of Democrats fell back two points to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.3% in November and just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.

At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year.

As with the USA Today report, independents grew fastest in December, going up 1.2 points from 30.8% to 32%. The real story in this survey, though, is the growing gap between Republicans and Democrats. The margin in December was 2.7%, the widest margin for all of 2011. Just three years ago, as Barack Obama took office, Democrats had an eight-point edge in affiliation, 41/33. The new level for Republican affiliation breaks out of the long-held 31-34% range for Republicans.

Most of the GOP gain has come through subtraction, of course. Democrats have lost more than eight points, while Republicans have only gained 2.4 points, so the movement hasn’t been from Democrat to Republican. It looks more like Democrat to independent, with a smaller migration from independent to Republican. There may be practical rather than ideological reasons for the shift, as I wrote with the USA Today piece. Only one party will hold a meaningful primary process for the presidential election, which may mean that some of the GOP growth might be from people who want to participate in closed primaries in some states. Previously affiliated Democrats may not see any advantage to staying with the party in the absence of a meaningful presidential primary, either. Still, it’s clear that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill aren’t making much of an argument for staying inside the Democratic Party at the moment.

Nevertheless, it’s a trend that bears watching. Rasmussen has generally tracked closely to the same trends seen in Gallup’s quarterly party-affiliation polling, so it will be interesting to see if the same trend appears there. This will be particularly useful in analyzing general-election polling and the samples used, even if the survey itself may not lend itself to broad assumptions about the electorate’s mood.

[siboneyes]

The OWS according to Thomas Sowell

November 23, 2011

The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama’s America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly. It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.

It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having SX in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person’s guaranteed liberties.

It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor.

It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.

Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America . “Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Thomas Sowell

Obama to Occupy Wall St. Protesters: "You are the reason I ran for office."

Weekly Standard ^ | 11/22/11 | John McCormack

Obama hugs an increasingly unpopular, vulgar, and lawless movement. The Hill reports that after President Obama was heckled by protesters at an event in New Hampshire, he said:

   “I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I'll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”

    A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Matthew Continetti writes on the Occupy movement in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "Anarchy in the U.S.A."

    Obama once again siding with the OWS pedophiles, rapists, exhibitionists, attackers of police officers, thieves, drug dealers, vandals, etc. (I have news headlines for each accusation showing the OWS trash engaging in these crimes.)

   Is Captain Civility who preached to conservatives about "civility" in the wake of the Giffords shooting by a raving leftist proud of the civility being demonstrated by these low life OWS he says are the reason he ran as they scream at and terrorize school children and refuse police requests to disperse because of police resources being diverted to their encampments leading to increased crime in other parts of the cities where these maggots are congregating?

[siboneyes]

OBAMA AVANZA SU AGENDA TOTALITARIA

OBAMA EN FRANCA VIOLACION DE LA CONSTITUCION (IMPEACHMENT?)

Obama's Cordray Appointment Mocks the Constitution  

By Phil Kerpen   Published January 04, 2012 | FoxNews.com 

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”      

Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.      

Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”    

If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense.  But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.

According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power