Bob Woodward – Enemy of the State?

So the WH takes on Woodward. May have been one bridge too far. Looks like the boys aren’t backing down.

UPDATE: Latest twiiter from WH David Plouffe

David PlouffeDavid Plouffe@davidplouffe

Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

 

Take a look at the video over at Politico and the story “Behind the Curtain”.

The Obama aide “yelled at me for about a half hour,” Woodward told us in an hour-long interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington’s powerful have spilled their secrets.

Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill.

First Woodward Calls Out Obama For Sequestration “Madness” last week, now Obama threatens him. Anyone still wondering if Obama has an enemies list?

Now the background of the WH unhappiness.

As the clock ticks down to the implementation of President Obama’s sequester. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward is blasting President Obama today for using the law as a way to put our national security at risk.

The Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on “Morning Joe” today, saying he’s exhibiting a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?'” Woodward said.

WH scare tactics over squester reach new low

Amazing isn’t it how the Obama machine wants to scare the whatever out of us. Of course this whole thing was his idea before he forgot that it was. How convenient.

https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/306216292149506049

The White HouseVerified account@whitehouseFeb 26

RT if you agree: Our troops shouldn’t have to bear the burden of deficit reduction: http://on.wh.gov/ijBJyFN pic.twitter.com/jyzbml8ZKE

 
  • Embedded image permalink
 

Biden and the shotgun – so much better! (Humor)

 This video compares the use of AR-15 to a shotgun by the little lady! After Biden explains the advantage of using a shotgun, a demonstration is given. Which one would you prefer? Keep in mind there are plenty of women who know how to shoot and have been given proper training.

D.O.E. to recycle nuclear waste into consumer products.

Put this in the unbelievable column. I have researched this extensively.This must be the hoax of the century. Please tell me I am wrong about this. So this is Secretary Chu’s farewell gift to us? All that talk about saving our environment and keeping Mother Earth safe and sound? But wait, in 2000 Energy Secretary Richardson tried to do this once before.It gives new meaning to Obama and his so called “all of the above” plan regarding energy.

In an article entitled “Nuclear weapons waste in your hip replacement?”, John LaForge of Nukewatch reports, U.S. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) — who is now running for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by John Kerry as he becomes Secretary of State — has sent a strongly worded letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, expressing opposition to the so-called “recycling” scheme. The full letter can be found HERE.

DOE made the proposal to rescind its earlier moratorium on radioactive scrap metal recycling in December, 2012.

The letter notes that in 2000, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson first suspended DOE’s radioactive recycling efforts in response to concerns raised by Rep. Markey and others that DOE would not be able to assure public safety as radioactively contaminated metals could have been turned into everything from baby spoons to jewelry to medical devices that are implanted into the human body

Rep. Markey serves as Ranking Member of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, and as a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

On Jan. 11th, Markey wrote to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu — and his office issued a press release — expressing deep concerns and asking pointed questions about the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposals to “recycle” large quantities of radioactive scrap metal into consumer products.

On Jan. 14th, Rep. Markey again wrote Secretary Chu, questioning the wisdom of DOE’s dirty, dangerous, and expensive proposal to “recycle” surplus weapons plutonium into MOX (Mixed-Oxide, uranium-plutonium) reactor fuel.

The proposal follows an incident from 2012 involving Bed, Bath & Beyond stores in America recalling tissue holders made in India that were contaminated with the radio-isotope cobalt-60. Those products were shipped to 200 stores in 20 states. In response to that incident, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson advised members of the public to return the products even though the amount of contamination was not considered to be a health risk.

“The public concerns associated with such a proposal cannot be understated,” writes Rep. Markey to Secretary Chu. “If these metals are being released to companies who will subsequently manufacture new consumer products from them, DOE simply has no way to ensure that different samples are not aggregated into more highly radioactive products.”

On a vital radioactive waste battlefront, NIRS has put out an alert against a scheme to “recycle” vast quantities of radioactive metal from across the nuclear weapons complex into the consumer product recycling stream.

NIRS asks, “Will the next zipper on your pants be radioactive? How about your silverware?”, and explains:

“The Department of Energy wants to mix radioactive metal from nuclear weapons factories with clean recycled metal and let it enter into general commerce–where it could be used for any purpose.

It’s a foot in the door for revival of a vast–and discredited–radioactive waste deregulation plan defeated in 1992.

. H/T: Beyond Nuclear

New Clandestine Service Blends Civilian and Military Operations

This is why Brennan is such a dangerous man, No doubt his baby. Even Feinstein finds the convergence of civilian and military operations worrisome at the last hearing. No Senate overview permitted or required for the most part. We know where this is headed, don’t we. Why a new agency? The new term they are using is Warfighters. We now have Warfighters.

The federal government is expanding the spy network, this time by adding an intelligence agency at the Department of Defense. The Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) is now active and operating under the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). According to the organization’s website, DCS’s mission will be to conduct:

human intelligence (HUMINT) operations to answer national-level defense objectives for the President, the Secretary of Defense, and senior policymakers. The civilian and military workforce of the DCS conducts clandestine and overt intelligence operations in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and our Military Services to accomplish their mission in defense of the Nation.

It is this blending (convergence) of the civilian intelligence apparatus with the traditional military establishment that is not only worrisome and a threat to the Fourth Amendment, but may be a violation of the law, as well.

The DCS declares that it is “mission focused” and that mission is to accelerate the convergence of the military and the civilian authorities and obliterate constitutional boundaries around privacy and civil liberties.

The DCS website confirms the federal government’s quest for civilian/military convergence. Under the heading “What Does a Case Officer Do?” DSC states, “Our elite corps of Case Officers deploy globally alongside warfighters and interagency partners to protect our National security.”

Soldiers (“warfighters”) and spies working together to “protect our national security” globally, including inside the United States.

The basic idea is that the new spies will work in conjunction with their counterparts at the CIA’s National Clandestine Service to expand the scope of the federal intelligence community’s surveillance operations.

Professor Chesney summarizes the relevant legal (and constitutional question) in his paper. He writes:

the convergence trend undermines the existing legal architecture along the rule-of-law dimension by exposing latent confusion and disagreement regarding which substantive constraints apply to military and intelligence operations. Is international law equally applicable to all such operations? Is an agency operating under color of “Title 50” at liberty to act in locations or circumstances in which the armed forces ordinarily cannot?

Title 50 is the section of the U.S. Code governing the legal authority of the CIA. Title 10, on the other hand, is the provision covering the authority of the armed forces. As the two sections reveal, there are “distinct spheres of intelligence and military operations and that each is subject to a distinct set of standing statutory authorizations and constraints.”

Read the full post over atThe New American. Well worth the time.

Take the Civic Literacy Exam

I caught this over at Doug Ross. Something to do on a winter’s day. Enjoy!

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute offers an extremely interesting Full Civic Literacy Exam

Quiz

  • Full Civic Literacy Exam (from our 2008 survey)

    Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

The Abraham Lincoln you know nothing about

 Having been fortunate in college to have a History Prof who had a keen interest in Lincoln, I was given the opportunity to read many of the primary sources when we covered the Civil War. What always remained with me were the writings of Lincoln which stood out in sharp contrast to the generally accepted truth of what he was about. There has been a growing annoyance with me that he now has almost received deification what with O”Reilly’s new book and films. I was pleased to find a post today over at Front page mag.: The Truth about Abraham Lincoln & Slavery: Breaking through the mythology.

The final words from the post, see if it sounds familiar:

Why didn’t Lincoln feel the same about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

The book  uses exact quotes from his writings. You decide what the civil war was all about. Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola University Maryland, exposed some of the Lincoln myth in his 2006 book, “Lincoln Unmasked.” Now comes Joseph Fallon, cultural intelligence analyst and former U.S. Army Intelligence Center instructor, with his new e-book, “Lincoln Uncensored.” Fallon’s book examines 10 volumes of collected writings and speeches of Lincoln’s, which include passages on slavery, secession, equality of blacks and emancipation. We don’t have to rely upon anyone’s interpretation. Just read his words to see what you make of them.:

In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.”

 “My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.”

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

“I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Read more over at  Front page mag

George Orwell’s final warning and other historical facts

I found the essay and video that follows over at Adriennes’s blog. Matt Bracken: Democide the elimination of a despised group by a government. It is a long essay, but one to save for the historical record. There is no better explanation for the 2nd amendment, and what can go wrong when we lose this right. But first, a short clip from Orwell, and then a clip from the post.

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures

I’m taking Matt Bracken at his word:

Matt Bracken | February 20, 2013 at 10:10

Please share the essay and video as widely as possible on RKBA and other freedomista blogs and websites. Copy it all, save it all, I expect a serious effort by the commie rat bastards to squelch this message, especially the video.

H/T Western Rifle Shooters Association Warning, disturbing pictures.

 

Matt Bracken: Democide the elimination of a despised group by a government.

Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.

The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.

The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.

Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.

In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.

Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.

Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)

Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.

In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.

The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.

In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.

Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.

During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.

The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.

“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.

So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.

Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.

The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.

While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.

American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.

Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.

But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.

Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”

If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”

You want our guns? Then come and take them!

No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!

Freedom now, freedom forever!  

Obama works to purge online opponents

Under the guise of curbing the “radicalization” of U.S. citizens and identifying and purging potentially violent persons from the Internet, the White House has initiated the creation of a new interagency working group to address what it calls a growing problem.

When I read this, I thought now, just who is it they want to purge? Now that Obama and crowd are purging or reassigning the military leadership themselves- The dissapearing Generals– of those who disagree with our “Emperor”, it makes sense. It reminded me of the post West Point Think Tank warns of dangerous “Conservatives”

The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.” And just who are these “Violent Far-Right” folks?

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

Now that we have this point cleared up, let’s get on to the story.

The White House issued a fact sheet delineating the broad objectives of the plan.

The interagency group will be headed by Quintan Wiktorowicz, the current White House senior director for community partnerships on the national security staff. The new group will be called The Interagency Working Group to Counter Online Radicalization and will be charged with the implementation of an Internet safety program to address online violent extremism.

Wiktorowiczs stated,

Violent extremist groups ─ like Al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents, violent supremacist groups, and violent “sovereign citizens” ─ are leveraging online tools and resources to propagate messages of violence and division. These groups use the Internet to disseminate propaganda, identify and groom potential recruits, and supplement their real-world recruitment efforts. Some members and supporters of these groups visit mainstream fora to see whether individuals might be recruited or encouraged to commit acts of violence, look for opportunities to draw targets into private exchanges, and exploit popular media like music videos and online video games. Although the Internet offers countless opportunities for Americans to connect, it has also provided violent extremists with access to new audiences and instruments for radicalization.”

The Obama Administration has already caused the alarm bells to ring on several occasions as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released several internal memos referring to conservative Christians who believe the Bible, pro-life citizens who are against abortion, Tea Party activists, and political conservatives who believe in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution as “potential homegrown terrorists.”

And in the current gun rights debate, sovereign citizens have gone on the record to oppose the Obama administration’s all-out assault on the Second Amendment, vowing to disobey any law that would violate their unfettered rights to keep and bear firearms.. More at Examiner

Just a reminder for old times sake about defining a “Terrorist”. By the way, Paul’s amendment was defeated.

Pelosi: Obama can keep drone strikes against Americans a secret

Nothing to think about. No worries.  This is even more reason I am looking forward to the confirmation of Brennan. He will be more than happy to follow the Emperor’s orders.

Brennan Sidesteps Query on Drone Kills in U.S.

In written answers to Senate Intelligence Committee questions released Friday, CIA director nominee John Brennan would not say whether the U.S. could conduct drone strikes inside the United States — only that it did not intend to do so. Roll Call

FBI Director: I have to check to see if Obama can kill citizens on U.S. soil

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting. Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., believes that President Obama doesn’t necessarily have to announce that an American citizen suspected of terrorism has been killed in a drone strike.

“Maybe. It just depends,” Pelosi replied when The Huffington Post asked her if “the administration should acknowledge when it targets a U.S. citizen in a drone strike.” When Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike, President Obama announced the killing within hours. “People just want to be protected,” Pelosi also said. “And I saw that when we were fighting them on surveillance, the domestic surveillance. Would you care to explain Pelosi?  People just want to be protected: ‘You go out there and do it. I’ll criticize you, but I want to be protected.’”

Somehow we never get around to talking about the 16 year son of al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen killed at a restaurant one week after killing his father.

More at washington examiner

%d bloggers like this: