The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

 
» Posts tagged 'Obama Administration'
 
 

Obama Administration

63123_4433834596461_149553524_n[1]

By: Michael Snyder

How would America ever survive without the central planners in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve? What in the world would we do if there was no income tax and no IRS? Could the U.S. economy possibly keep from collapsing under such circumstances? The mainstream media would have us believe that unless we have someone “to pull the levers” our economy would descend into utter chaos, but the truth is that the best period of economic growth in U.S. history occurred during a time when there was no income tax and no Federal Reserve. Between the Civil War and 1913, the U.S. economy experienced absolutely explosive growth. The free market system thrived and the rest of the world looked at us with envy. The federal government was very limited in size, there was no income tax for most of that time and there was no central bank. To many Americans, it would be absolutely unthinkable to have such a society today, but it actually worked very, very well. Without the inventions and innovations that came out of that period, the world would be a far different place today.

It is amazing what can happen when the government just gets out of the way. Check out all of the wonderful things that Wikipedia says happened for the U.S. economy during those years…

The rapid economic development following the Civil War laid the groundwork for the modern U.S. industrial economy. By 1890, the USA leaped ahead of Britain for first place in manufacturing output.

An explosion of new discoveries and inventions took place, a process called the “Second Industrial Revolution.” Railroads greatly expanded the mileage and built stronger tracks and bridges that handled heavier cars and locomotives, carrying far more goods and people at lower rates. Refrigeration railroad cars came into use. The telephone, phonograph, typewriter and electric light were invented. By the dawn of the 20th century, cars had begun to replace horse-drawn carriages.

Parallel to these achievements was the development of the nation’s industrial infrastructure. Coal was found in abundance in the Appalachian Mountains from Pennsylvania south to Kentucky. Oil was discovered in western Pennsylvania; it was mainly used for lubricants and for kerosene for lamps. Large iron ore mines opened in the Lake Superior region of the upper Midwest. Steel mills thrived in places where these coal and iron ore could be brought together to produce steel. Large copper and silver mines opened, followed by lead mines and cement factories.

In 1913 Henry Ford introduced the assembly line, a step in the process that became known as mass-production.

When hard working, industrious people are given freedom to pursue their dreams, great things tend to happen. The truth is that we were all designed to create, to invent, to build, and to trade with one another. We all have something that we can contribute to society, and when families are strong and the invisible hand of the free market is allowed to work, societies tend to prosper.

It is not a coincidence that the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history was between the Civil War and 1913. The following information comes from Wikipedia

The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita, despite the panic of 1873. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled.

Wouldn’t you like U.S. GDP to double over the course of a decade now?

So why don’t we go back to a system like that?

In 1913, the Federal Reserve and a permanent national income tax were introduced. Today, the unelected central planners at the Federal Reserve totally run our financial system and the U.S. tax code is about 13 miles long. The value of our currency has declined by more than 96 percent since 1913, and the size of our national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger.

Meanwhile, control freak bureaucrats seemingly run everything. Almost every business decision is heavily influenced either by taxes or by the millions of laws, rules and regulations that are sucking the life out of our economic system.

My favorite example of how suffocating red tape in America has become is the magician out in Missouri that was forced by the Obama administration to submit a 32 page “disaster plan” for the rabbit that he uses during his magic shows for kids.

It is no wonder why we don’t have any economic growth. The central planners in the federal government are killing our economy.

And the central planners over at the Federal Reserve are killing our financial system. In school we are taught that the Fed was created to bring stability to our financial system, but the truth is that they have been responsible for financial bubble after financial bubble, and now Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has created the largest bond bubble in the history of the world. When that thing bursts, and it will, we are going to see financial carnage on an unprecedented scale.

Unfortunately, the truth is that the Federal Reserve never has been looking out for the interests of the American people. It was created by the big banks and it has always worked very hard to benefit the big banks. During the Fed era, the big banks have become the most powerful economic entities on the entire planet. Our entire economy is now based on debt, and the big banks are at the very center of this debt spiral. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Paul B. Farrell

Today’s world includes four Wall Street banks each with assets over $1 trillion, each more than Goldman. Plus eight other big global banks each have over $2 trillion total assets, including, among the 100 largest, Barclays, HSBC, Deutsche, ICB-China and Japan’s Mitsubishi.

Yes, this new world is changing fast. Back in 2008 the world’s financial banks were in ruins. Wall Street sunk into virtually bankruptcy. Goldman and its Wall Street too-big-to-fail co-conspirators had trashed the global economy, triggered a virtual depression, and Wall Street’s casinos lost over $10 trillion of Main Street retirement funds.

And as we saw back in 2008, the Federal Reserve is going to do whatever is necessary to prop up Wall Street. Most Americans never even heard about this, but during the last financial crisis the Fed secretly loaned 16 trillion dollars to the big banks. Those loans were nearly interest-free and those banks knew that they could get basically as much nearly interest-free money as they wanted from the Fed.

So how much nearly interest-free money did the Fed loan to normal Americans?

Not a single penny.

That would be bad enough, but it is also important to remember that since 2008 the Fed has actually been paying banks NOT to lend money to the rest of us.

What is it going to take for the American people to start demanding that the Fed be abolished? They are absolutely destroying our financial system.

Meanwhile, the central planners in the Obama administration have been doing their part as well. During the second quarter of this year, the number of Americans working between 30 and 34 hours per week fell by 146,500. During that same time period, the number of Americans working between 25 and 29 hours rose by 119,000.

Why is this happening?

Well, the Obamacare employer mandate will apply to workers that work at least 30 hours each week, so employers are starting to cut back on the hours their employees are getting in order to comply with the law.

But this is just one example out of thousands, and most Americans already know that the U.S. economy has been crumbling for many years.

In fact, things have gotten so bad that even 53 percent of all Democrats believe that the American Dream is dead even though Barack Obama is residing in the White House.

But this is just the beginning. Things are going to get much, much worse. We are going down the same path that Greece has gone, and the unemployment rate in Greece has just hit a new all-time record high of 27.6 percent.

That is where the U.S. is headed eventually. Decades of very foolish decisions are catching up with us.

The primary reason why all of this is happening is debt. As a society, we simply have way, way, way too much debt.

The biggest offender, of course, is the federal government. Since 1970, federal spending has grown nearly 12 times as rapidly as median household income has, and since the year 2000 the size of the U.S. national debt has grown by more than 11 trillion dollars.

When government debt gets too large, it has a profoundly negative effect on an economy. The following is an excerpt from an outstanding article by Lacy H. Hunt, a Ph.D. economist

*****

Here are the studies, starting with the one with the broadest implications:

  1. “Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence,” from Journal of Economic Surveys. Published in April 2011, Swedish economists Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson (both of the Research Institute of Industrial Economics at Lund University) found a “significant negative correlation” between size of government and economic growth. Specifically, “an increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5% to 1% lower annual growth rate.”
  2. “The Impact of High and Growing Government Debt on Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation for the Euro Area,” in European Central Bank working paper, Number 1237, August 2010. Cristina Checherita and Philipp Rother found that a government-debt-to-GDP ratio above the threshold of 90-100% has a “deleterious” impact on long-term growth. Additionally, the impact of debt on growth is nonlinear – as the government debt rises to higher and higher levels, the adverse growth consequences accelerate.
  3. The Real Effects of Debt, published by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland in August 2011. Stephen G. Cecchetti, M. S.Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli determined that “beyond a certain level, debt is bad for growth. For government debt, the number is about 85% of GDP.”
  4. “Public Debt Overhangs: Advanced-Economy Episodes Since 1800,”by Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, Kenneth S. Rogoff, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 26, Number 3, Summer 2012, pages 69-86. The authors identified 26 cases of “debt overhangs,” which they define as public-debt-to-GDP levels exceeding 90% for at least five years. In spite of the many idiosyncratic differences in these situations, economic growth fell in all but three of the 26 cases. All of the instances, which lasted an average of 23 years, are included in the paper. They found that average annual growth is 1.2% lower for countries with a debt overhang than for countries without. The long duration of such episodes means that cumulative shortfall from the debt excess—i.e., several years in a row of subpar economic growth—is potentially massive.

*****

But it isn’t just federal government debt that is the problem. The rest of us have way too much debt as well.

If you can believe it, the ratio of private debt to GDP was 273.3% for the twelve months ending in the first quarter of 2013.

That is an astounding figure.

And as Hunt explained, having too much private debt is also very bad for an economy…

In Too Much Finance, published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in March 2011, Jean Louis Arcand, Enrico Berkes, and Ugo Panizza found a negative effect on output growth when credit to the private sector reaches 104-110% of GDP. The strongest adverse effects are for credit over 160% of GDP.

The second is the 2011 BIS study authored by Cecchetti, Mohanty, and Zampolli. They found that private debt levels become “cancerous” (in BIS economic advisor Cecchetti’s own words) at 175% (90% for corporations and 85% for households)—just slightly more than the UNCTAD study.

When you add our private debt to GDP ratio of 273 percent to our federal debt to GDP ratio of 101 percent, you get a grand total of 384 percent.

This is how we have funded the false prosperity of the past couple of decades. Essentially, we have been putting our good times on a credit card.

And as anyone that has ever tried to live on credit knows, the good times eventually run out.

But this is what the Federal Reserve was designed to do. It was designed to get the U.S. government trapped in a debt spiral from which there would never be any escape.

It is not an accident that our national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Fed was originally created. This is what the bankers wanted the system to do.

They wanted a system that would extract wealth from all of us through taxes, transfer it to the government, and then transfer it to them through interest payments.

We never needed a central bank, we never needed the IRS and we never needed an income tax. America would be doing just fine without any of them.

But instead, America chose to go down the path of collectivization and central planning, and now we are heading toward the biggest economic disaster in the history of mankind.

TLB recommends you visit The Economic Collapse for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/during-the-best-period-of-economic-growth-in-u-s-history-there-was-no-income-tax-and-no-federal-reserve

 

Barack Obama

By

The Intercept’s inaugural exposé, by my colleagues Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, illuminates the deeply flawed interaction between omnipresent electronic surveillance and targeted drone killings –- two of the three new, highly disruptive instruments of national power that President Obama has pursued with unanticipated enthusiasm.

All three (the third being cyberwar) have a lot in common. Despite their staggering implications, Obama has proceeded to establish the rules for them unilaterally, almost entirely in secret, based on dubious legal arguments, largely unchecked by judicial or congressional oversight, and with a seemingly unshakeable yet remarkably unfounded faith in their value.

But one of the many major takeaways from the eight-month-and-counting exploration of the trove of secret NSA documents Edward Snowden gave journalists is that what may seem like good ideas within the confines of a like-minded military-intelligence establishment look very different when exposed to overdue public scrutiny.

Only then do you find out they don’t work so well. Or that they aren’t really legal, or constitutional. Or that they do more harm than good. Or that the government relies on them too much, at the expense of things that might actually work.

History has shown time and again that secrecy and bad decisions go hand in hand.

So the fact that two new, secret U.S. government war-making abilities when used in tandem have particularly disastrous consequences for innocent civilians is newsworthy – but unfortunately not that surprising.

Because of the Obama administration’s refusal to disclose its selection or targeting criteria in any detail, it’s impossible to determine with any confidence which or how many of the civilian massacres by drone were the product of an overreliance on SIGINT rather than, say, a HUMINT asset settling a personal score or a government official eliminating possible rivals, or just plain user error.

But it’s probably more than the Obama administration would like you to think. The White House’s record of truth-telling when it comes to drone warfare is appalling. Years of administration arguments that civilian casualties in drone attacks have been inconsequential have proven again and again to be specious. Before Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s March 2013 assurance to Congress that the government wasn’t collecting data on Americans in bulk, the administration’s single biggest whopper might have been White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan’s assertion in June 2011 that over the previous year there had not been a single collateral death from drone strikes.

Exhaustive independent studies by the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the New America Foundation and the Long War Journal have documented that civilian casualties are endemic – the latest count is at least 440 since the drone campaigns began, according to the BIJ.

And countless journalistic accounts have described how the strikes are counterproductive, increasing civilians’ sympathy for al Qaeda and its allies in Yemen today as in Pakistan and Afghanstan before, and as in Somalia next.

Obama himself is hardly unaware of the dreadful downside of errant drone strikes. As Daniel Klaidman reported in his book, “Kill or Capture,” Obama authorized his very first drone strike on the third full day of his presidency, after having been assured by then-CIA director Michael Hayden that the targets were high-level al Qaeda and Taliban commanders. The Hellfire missile he sent into a compound in Pakistan instead killed a prominent pro-government tribal elder and four members of his family, including two children.

Klaidman wrote that Obama was “understandably disturbed” when he found out what happened, and insisted on some procedural changes. But civilian casualties continued. And each time, Obama evidently convinced himself that it wouldn’t happen again.

His most recent public assurance came in an October 2013 speech to the United Nations, where he announced that he had “limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

Less than two months later, missiles fired by a U.S. drone killed 13 people in a convoy of vehicles headed to a wedding party in Yemen.

How Obama’s faith in his military and intelligence leaders was restored or remained unflagging after all these incidents, despite the skepticism that he so clearly displayed during his first presidential campaign, is surely one of the great mysteries facing his supporters today, and historians tomorrow.

The spirited and informed public debate we need to have over these new ways of war has been stifled by the Obama administration, which has not only made a mockery of its promises of transparency, but has set new records in terms of its hostility toward journalistic leaks.

Congress, meanwhile, has shirked its oversight duties, in an unholy alliance of complicit leaders, happy campaign contributors, Republican ultra-hawks and partisan Democrats who don’t want to attack their president, even when he has enshrined precisely the kind of radical militaristic and anti-civil libertarian policies they convinced themselves during the Bush years were temporary aberrations.

And the elite Washington press corps, not yet recovered from its abdication of adversarial journalism after 9/11, has done an astonishingly poor job of raising and pressing important questions.

Where does that leave us?

Here. In a place and time where the only way to have the debate the country so desperately needs is for whistleblowers to speak up, and for independent journalists to make sure that they are heard.

TLB Highly recommends you visit THE // INTERCEPT for more great/pertinent commentary, articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/11/terrible-toll-secrecy/

 

hitler youth movement

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges.

There is presently a massive conspiracy designed to separate you from your children and give the government complete control over your children. To put it simply, Human, Health and Services (HHS) and their state level emissary, Children Protective Services (CPS) are engaged in a conspiracy which will culminate in (1) the Agenda 21 designed breakdown of the family; (2) the eradication of any semblance of parental authority over children; and, (3) unbridled and unfettered access to seizing children from the home in unlimited quantities for whatever nefarious purposes which might dictate the volume of child seizures.

The Plot Is International Begins with the UN

This program emanates from a partnership between various United Nations organizations and ICF, acting on behalf of HHS, CPS and Obamacare (i.e. The Affordable Health Care Act). The evidence in this article, along with the included links, will demonstrate that when Obamacare is fully operational, our families, specifically our children will be living in a Hitler Youth Movement hellish nightmare in which the state owns and can seize your children.

After reviewing HHS, CPS and UN documents. What is being presently reported in the alternative media is merely the tip of the iceberg with regard to HHS’ intentions toward the ultimate outcome of the children in this country. After reviewing the documents, there is no doubt that Obama is representing international interests which will seek to remove as many children as possible from the homes of their parents in the spirit of the Hitler Youth Movement.

But first let me quickly review the recent revelations of the HHS/CPS/Obamacare intention to conduct what I have dubbed as “home invasion interventions.”

Obamacare Home Invasions and Interventions

According to a previously unreported Obamacare regulation, that has managed to escape “scrutiny” from the mainstream media, millions of American families will be targeted for home invasion by the forces of the Federal government in the name of preventing parental neglect resulting in disabilities in their children. And the Fourth Amendment be damned, as of this past January 1, 2014, Federal officials may enter your home without a warrant in order to “intervene” for the purpose of saving “high risk” children.

Obamacare’s Definition of High Risk

The exposure of the extreme and intrusive nature of Obamacare through home invasion visits is finally seeing the light of day in the alternative media. However, this exposure is grossly understated. As a starting point, I will briefly review what is making the rounds in the alternative media. According to Human Health Services, your family is eligible for this Hitler style for “intervention” in the following situations:

1. Families where mom is not yet 21.

2. Families where someone is a tobacco user.

3. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

4. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

5. Although this is not being widely reported, homeschoolers and their families will be targeted for “interventions” as will be families who object to having their children take vaccines.

There is no question that all of the above categories, warrants a home invasion followed by “remediation.” The visits are not being conducted by HHS officials as has been reported in several publications. The home invasion visits are being conducted by CPS on behalf of HHS.

HHS has designed a detailed 110 page policy manual which focuses on the criteria constituting child neglect. This policy manual which is the guide created by HHS for CPS’ home intervention visits makes the above criteria, presently being reported in the alternative media, look tame by comparison.

HHS, CPS and the Criminalization of Parenthood

In the 110 page HHS/CPS manual, the variables which comprise child neglect, worthy of government intervention is frightening beyond any words I can find to express their undisguised intentions. This entire document which will serve as the field manual by CPS in support of Obamacare undermines parental authority to a level that is beyond belief.

"We are from HHS and we are here to help you."

“We are from HHS and we are here to help you.”

How many of you were ever grounded by your parents and not permitted to play outside with your friends? This is now illegal under the HHS/CPS policy manual. They label the treatment as neglect by isolation. There are no time frames set forth which constitutes isolation and it is left to the field representative. This obviously erodes parental discipline.

If your child is judged to be underachieving in school, this is referred to as educational neglect and is worthy of governmental intervention. Further, if your child is absent for five days in any one month from school, the same allegation would be made against the parent.

If your child has ADD or ADHD, you could be accused of neglect because the document details how this can be somehow caused by poor nutrition, although the variables associated with the cause are not specified.

The document goes out of its way to specify that poverty and neglect are not inextricably linked. Then the document goes out of its way to link poverty with child neglect. Read between the lines America. As we already are aware, many poor children who go missing from scandals such as Jerry Sandusky’s Second Mile Foundation, the infamous Franklin Scandal and last year’s CPS scandal with the 78 missing wards of the state in Oklahoma, frequently end up being put into child sex trafficking rings operated and funded by such notables as DynCorps and HSBC bank.

Of course, no Obama inspired program would be complete without an attack upon the Second Amendment. Obamacare is no exception as one of the criteria for child neglect are parents who are also gun owners.

The presence of alcohol in the home is a trigger for an allegation of neglect and subsequent “intervention.” Of course, alcoholic parents can present a clear and present danger to a child’s well-being. However, in the policy manual the conditions for concern over alcohol do not detail the amount and percentage of the family resources involved necessary to obtain alcohol. In other words, one can of beer in the home can be considered to constitute child neglect by the Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If your child has engages in any type of illicit or criminal behavior, your family is at risk. Raise your hands if you ever smoked pot before the age of 18, or drank as a teen, or engaged in any kind of sexual activity before the age of 18, ever stayed out past curfew, or ever shoplifted? IF your children ever engages in these and a multitude of other transgressions, you are in danger of losing your children. This also means that if your child is ever involved in a fight in school or is assigned detention, the school will be required to report the behavior to the HHS/CPS and you can expect to have a “home invasion intervention” session with your friendly Obamacare CPS fieldworker.

If you are ever late picking up your child from daycare or from school aftercare, you will now be reported to CPS.

If you have ever been depressed or have been treated for any mental disorder (e.g. PTSD, anxiety, etc.), you are at risk for losing your children.

Even illegal immigrant families are not immune from this insanity. Children are judged by the field worker to not be fully acculturated, do not properly speak the language, exhibits signs of being homesick and is judged to have not formed an unspecified number of friends and formed a cohesive social network, allegations of neglect can be made.

I would invite the reader to spend some time reviewing the document which will be serving as the policy manual for the forced home inspections. Please note that when the reader gets beyond the flowery language and professed concern for children, that the language is written so broadly that virtually any human condition, any family circumstance or child’s behavior can be interpreted as child neglect. There is literally no end to the tyranny that awaits the art of parenting in the present day.

The important thing to note is the use of language by this manual. Parents who are deemed by an Obamacare CPS field worker, operating under the HHS flag, to be neglectful towards their children are considered to have created “disabilities” within their children. As the reader will soon discover, the use of the term “disabilities” is key to understanding how far this administration is willing to go to seize children for some nefarious purpose.

Sadly, this is still only the beginning. There is far more to be concerned about beginning with who is ultimately responsible for these outrages.

Meet the Creators of the State Sponsored Child Kidnapping Rings

The primary author for this insane manual for HHS/CPS and their designed home invasion interventions is Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., M.S.W. She is the Associate Dean for. Research and an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Maryland. More importantly she is a co-editor of the Handbook on Child Protection Practice. In other words, DePanfills has been a major player in the unconstitutional practices we see in CPS in all 50 states. As if this is not concerning enough, all of the other contributing authors have their professional origins and affiliations with the same organization.

Lindsay Ritter Taylor from Caliber, an ICF International Company

Matthew Shuman, M.S.W, A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

Jean Strohl, A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company,

Jeannie Newman, M.S.W, M.I.B.S., A consultant with Caliber, an ICF International Company

It was at this point, I smelled a rat. We have the primary author being a CPS author designed to teach their field operatives on the methods of how to abuse parents and undermine parental authority. And all of the contributing authors come from the exact same corporation, ICF. At this point, it is prudent to ask the question, who is ICF?

ICF Is the Biggest Player That You Have Never Heard Of

ICF International partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in climate change, energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. In my mind, this established ICF as a major player in the introduction and implementation of the globalist agenda by designing matching Federal programs. And as it turned out they are a major player in Obamacare through their subsidiary acquisition, Caliber Associates.

Caliber is an “established leader in providing research, consulting, and innovation in human services and human resource issues.” ICF acquired Caliber in 2005 in order “to serve HHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Education.” Caliber Associates and their four contributing authors to the HHS/CPS field manual, which will be used to enforce child welfare regulations, was the undeniable link to Obamacare through this field manual. But as I discovered, the rabbit hole went even deeper.

After I found the co-authors of the HHS/CPS policy manual which will guide these forced home inspections, I smelled the distinct odor of the United Nations and Agenda 21 and sure enough, this was exactly what I found.

The United Nations and Obamacare

At times, I feel that I have the globalist playbook and I am able to often anticipate their next move. Please allow me to briefly illustrate how the globalists have operated in another area, education, and then draw the parallel to how the UN is deeply involved in Obamacare.

The Common Core Curriculum, which is sweeping the nation’s education system, was the product of “Education for All.” Education for All comes from the United Nations education arm, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Common Core went from UNESCO to the National Governors Association who in turn farmed out the development of the details to various NGO’s which in turn sent the standards to each state for implementation. This is the standard model that the globalists follow when implementing a controversial program and Obamacare follows a similar pattern as did Common Core.

There is no doubt that the provisions of allegedly protecting children in Obamacare, originated with the United Nations

Why do they want our kids?

 Why do they want our kids?

In the United Nations document entitled, Human Rights, Persons with Disabilities, ICF and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Training toolkit), implementation for programs designed to help people, children in particular, with disabilities, came from the World Health Organization (WHO) [Page 36], UNESCO [Page 37], the International Labour Organization (ILO) [Page 36] and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)[Page 38]. As one can see from the title, ICF and the UN have partnered to protect people/children with disabilities.

Conclusion

Please remember that earlier in the article, I made the point that the HHS/CPS field manual referred to neglected children as children who have disabilities. It is quite apparent that any of the conditions listed in the HHS/CPS manual will produce children who have disabilities. Under this guise, I can draw no other conclusion than Obamacare is ultimately state sponsored child slavery.

Under Obamacare, virtually every aspect of parenting is criminalized. Any child can be considered to have a disability for which the state is the only legitimate treatment source. When Obama was first running for President in 2008, he promised to build a civilian security force that “was just as strong, just as well-funded as our military.” And when one combines this conspiracy with Obama’s Executive Order 13603 which calls for a mandatory civilian conscription to complement a coming military draft, it is clear that this lunatic is planning to enslave a large segment of the population and he will obtain many of his conscripts from Obamacare. And many of you who are familiar with Agenda 21 and their expressed views toward parental rights and the rights of children, do not need me to make connect the dots, you already have done so.

Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistics which will tell the American public how many of its children have been abducted under these circumstances because the abduction statistics show up as a CPS intervention. One thing we can be sure of is that your parental rights are gone as you merely the temporary caregiver for the state when it comes to who has authority over your children.

My advice to all parents, don’t answer the door when you see the lady ringing your doorbell.

I cannot see any way out of this dilemma than to resist through the use of force. The Obamacare goons will NOT gain entry into my home while I am still breathing. I predict that HHS/CPS will soon be armed because they will, and should, meet massive resistance from the citizens.

America, we must resist this heinous tyranny with every means at our disposal.

Will you protect your children?

TLB Highly recommends you visit Dave at The Common Sense Show for more great/pertinent commentary, articles, radio shows and information.

See featured article and read comments here: http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/04/29/the-obama-youth-movement-the-seizing-of-american-children/

The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.

“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.”

Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.

The 16-page document, obtained by NBC News, emerged days before John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser and the foremost architect of America’s hugely controversial unmanned aerial vehicle war, goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a Thursday hearing on his confirmation as CIA director.

Obama campaigned in 2008 as a fierce critic of George W. Bush’s national security policies, notably interrogation practices widely seen as torture. He also left little doubt that he would order unilateral strikes inside another country if he deemed them necessary. In office, he has apparently learned to stop worrying and love executive power—the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens overseas when he suspects they are consorting with extremists groups that may be targeting America. So, under what circumstances does he have the right to act?

The memo says “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” must decide that the target is a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaida or “associated forces”; “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States”; and that an attempt to capture that individual is “infeasible.”

“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.

“Imminent threat”? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Instead, that previously mentioned “high-level official” can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

Isikoff notes the memo does not define “activities” or “recently,” leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.

A reporter asked Carney about the case of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the teenage son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida supporter killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen. The boy, 16, was killed in another drone strike about two weeks after his father. Was the son a “senior operational leader” of a terrorist group, a reporter asked. That seemed to stump Carney. “I’m not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred.”

But Obama wages this 21st-century war in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and our laws,” while aides review the difficult legal and ethical questions “with great care and deliberation,” Carney said.

The memo notes that the president can order a strike against al-Qaida far beyond the battlefield of Afghanistan, and it makes clear that he will not be constrained by national sovereignty. Either a country will give the green light to drone strikes on its territory, or America will strike if that country is “unable or willing” to do so.

This is no surprise. Obama famously said in the 2008 campaign that he would order an attack inside Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, whether or not Islamabad signed off. He made good on that promise, ordering the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 1, 2011, which killed the terrorist leader.

The memo is sure to trigger another round of questions from Congress about the drone war, which has been shrouded in secrecy. And it comes at a time when that campaign is powerfully unpopular overseas, according to a June 2012 Pew Research poll. While 62 percent of Americans approve of the approach, 44 percent of respondents in staunch ally Britain do. And the numbers plummet in countries with large Muslim populations: 6 percent in Egypt, for instance, and 9 percent in NATO ally Turkey.

That’s in part the reflection of anger over civilian casualties from such attacks. Obama has grappled with that problem ever since the very first drone strike on his watch, a Jan. 23, 2009, attack that reportedly claimed the life of “an innocent tribal elder” in Pakistan. A May 2012 New York Times report said the administration minimizes civilian casualties by counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.”

The memo drew a withering response from the American Civil Liberties Union.

“This is a profoundly disturbing document, and it’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority—the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after the fact.”

Read original here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-memo-justifies-drone-war-killing-americans-164123578–politics.html

When he visits Israel next month, US President Barack Obama will tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a “window of opportunity” for a military strike on Iran will open in June, according to an Israeli TV report Monday evening.

Obama will come bearing the message that if diplomatic efforts and sanctions don’t bear fruit, Israel should “sit tight” and let Washington take the stage, even if that means remaining on the sidelines during a US military operation, Channel 10 reported. Netanyahu will be asked to refrain from any military action and keep a low profile, avoiding even the mention of a strike, the report said, citing unnamed officials.

In London Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said an Iran with nuclear weapons was “simply unacceptable” and warned the time limit for a diplomatic solution was running out.

“As we have repeatedly made clear, the window for a diplomatic solution simply cannot remain open forever,” said Kerry, on his first international tour as America’s top diplomat. “But it is open today. It is open now and there is still time, but there is only time if Iran makes the decision to come to the table and to negotiate in good faith.

“We are prepared to negotiate in good faith, in mutual respect, in an effort to avoid whatever terrible consequences could follow failure, and so the choice really is in the hands of the Iranians. And we hope they will make the right choice,” Kerry added.

A fresh round of high-level diplomatic talks were set to begin Tuesday in Kazakhstan — the first since last June’s meeting in Moscow failed to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium to a level close to that used for nuclear warheads.

Two weeks ago, Netanyahu said he was looking forward to Obama’s visit and insisted that he enjoyed a positive relationship with the American president, despite reports to the contrary.

“We worked together closely, closer than how it may look. We worked together on security, diplomacy and intelligence,” he said, warning that Iran’s nuclear weapons program “continues unabated” and that “they’ll soon have enough material to produce a nuclear bomb.”

Netanyahu said earlier this month that he and Obama had agreed on three key areas of consultation during the presidential visit — thwarting Iran’s nuclear drive, grappling with the instability in Syria and the risks of WMD there falling into rogue hands, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read original here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-to-tell-netanyahu-us-gearing-up-for-strike/?

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.”

President Obama and other Democrats attempted to win support for the health-care bill by touting it as a fiscally responsible enterprise. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future,” Obama told a joint-session of Congress in September 2009. “I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

The new report exposes the “lack of honesty” surrounding such claims, Sessions argued. “The big-government crowd in Washington manipulated the numbers in order to get the financial score they wanted, in order to get their bill passed and to increase power and influence,” he said. “The goal was not truth or financial responsibility, but to pass the bill. This is how a country goes broke.”

The GAO report is essentially the first attempt to isolate and calculate Obamacare’s impact on the deficit beyond the traditional ten-year budget window. GAO ran two simulations “based on broad sets of assumptions about health care spending and other components of federal spending and revenue” over a 75-year period. First, a baseline-extended simulation, which “illustrates the long-term outlook assuming federal laws (applicable at the time the simulation was run) remain unchanged,” and second, an alternative simulation, which “illustrates the long-term fiscal outlook assuming historical trends and policy preferences continue.”

The baseline scenario is far more optimistic, largely because it does not take into account the concerns — expressed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Trustees, and Medicare’s chief actuary — about “whether certain cost-containment mechanisms included in PPACA can be sustained over the long term.”

However, the GAO report concluded that even under these “more optimistic assumptions,” Obamacare’s cost-control provisions “were not sufficient to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt held by the public.”

The alternative scenario, which incorporates the more realistic “alternative projections” suggested by CBO, the CMS trustees, and the chief Medicare actuary, is even more dire. Under this scenario, the “primary deficit” increases by 0.7 percent of GDP over the 75-year period. The GAO does not put a dollar value on that figure, but Senate Budget Committee staff has calculated, and GAO has confirmed, that it would amount to a $6.2 trillion increase in the federal deficit.

Read original here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

(CNSNews.com) – Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said before he became spokesman for the Obama administration he was told to “not even acknowledge the drone program…you’re not even to discuss that it exists.”

The administration’s drone program has come under scrutiny since a confidential Justice Department memo — leaked earlier this month — detailed the basis for drone strikes against alleged al-Qaeda operatives, including U.S. citizens.

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Up with Chris Hayes” on Sunday, Gibbs was asked if he believes the White House has been “sufficiently forthcoming” about its drone-strike program.

“Well, I think you’ve seen recently the president discuss the need and desire to be more forthcoming,” Gibbs said.  “I certainly think there are aspects of that program that are and will remain highly sensitive and very secret.”

“But let me give you an example here Chris,” Gibbs said. “When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.’”

“So I would get a question like that—literally I couldn’t tell you what Major [Garrett] asked, because once I figured out it was about the drone program I realized I’m not supposed to talk about it,” Gibbs said.

“But here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition,” he added.  “You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists.  So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program—pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Gibbs said denying the drone program, as he was told to do, “undermines people’s confidence” in government.

“I think in many ways, and I think what the president has seen–and I have not talked to him about this, so I want to be careful, this is my opinion,” he said.  “But I think what the President has seen is, is our denial of the existence of the program when it’s obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes.”

The Justice Department memo, released by NBC News on Feb. 4, reveals that American citizens can be the target of a drone strike if an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government determines they have “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of violent attack, though the terms remain undefined.

Read original here: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/administration-told-gibbs-drone-program-you-re-not-even-discuss-it-exists

Rep Steve Stockman (R-TX) made accusations against Barack Obama on Monday over his gun control campaign claiming that is it fraud based with fake messages over Twitter. Stockman claims that Obama is seeking to give the appearance of support greater than what he has for gun control legislation by flooding Twitter with messages from people that don’t exist.

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. “Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress,” he added. “I call upon the president to denounce this phony spam campaign.”

When Obama called for people to tweet their congressmen in support of more gun control legislation, Stockman said he received a mere 16 tweets. However, he notes that upon closer examination, only six of the tweets were from six actual people and that the messages were all identical.

“The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots,” his office said.

Then, in a press release issued by Stockman, he writes, “The other 10 are fake, computer-generated spambots.”

• They all use the default “egg” avatar.
• They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by Twitter.
• They have engaged in no human interaction.
• They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing real estates websites and other liberal “grassroots” campaigns.
• They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

His press release went on to point out, “Reporter Robert Stacy McCain’s investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign, available at www.theothermccain.com, finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in less than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.”

“Even more interesting, Stockman staff find two accounts happened to tweet Stockman back-to-back,” the press release continued. “Both have only one follower, former Obama digital strategist Brad Schenck. Schenck somehow found and followed them before they ever tweeted anything, followed anyone or followed any real people. Of the six real people who contacted Stockman only one can be verified as a constituent. One lives outside the district and the remaining four do not list where they live.”

“If you are a real person who contacted us about your support for the President’s anti-gun campaign, we are listening. We do not agree with you, but we appreciate your sincere opinions and encourage you to continue to contact us,” said Stockman. “But the vast majority of the President’s supporters have no feelings because they fake profiles from spammers.”

“The White House has some explaining to do. My own staff, and others looking into Obama’s Twitter campaign, find the vast majority of messages are coming from fraudulent accounts. Some of these accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress,” said Stockman.

Stockman ultimately said that the Obama anti-gun campaign was “using the same scam techniques that sell male enhancement pills.”

The Justice Department “white paper” purporting to authorize Obama’s power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration – including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan – has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.

Brennan has been asked the question several times as part of his confirmation process. Each time, he simply pretends that the question has not been asked, opting instead to address a completely different issue. Here’s the latest example from the written exchange he had with Senators after his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee; after referencing the DOJ “white paper”, the Committee raised the question with Brennan in the most straightforward way possible:

brennan q-and-aObviously, that the US has not and does not intend to engage in such acts is entirely non-responsive to the question that was asked: whether they believe they have the authority to do so. To the extent any answer was provided, it came in Brennan’s next answer. He was asked:

Could you describe the geographical limits on the Administration’s conduct drone strikes?”

Brennan’s answer was that, in essence, there are no geographic limits to this power: “we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida and associated forces as being limited to ‘hot’ battlefields like Afghanistan.” He then quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as saying: “neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan” (see Brennan’s full answer here).

Revealingly, this same question was posed to Obama not by a journalist or a progressive but by a conservative activist, who asked if drone strikes could be used on US soil and “what will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States believe know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?” Obama replied that there “has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil” – which, obviously, doesn’t remotely answer the question of whether he believes he has the legal power to do so. He added that “the rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States”, but these “rules” are simply political choices the administration has made which can be changed at any time, not legal constraints. The question – do you as president believe you have the legal authority to execute US citizens on US soil on the grounds of suspicions of Terrorism if you choose to do so? – was one that Obama, like Brennan, simply did not answer.

As always, it’s really worth pausing to remind ourselves of how truly radical and just plainly unbelievable this all is. What’s more extraordinary: that the US Senate is repeatedly asking the Obama White House whether the president has the power to secretly order US citizens on US soil executed without charges or due process, or whether the president and his administration refuse to answer? That this is the “controversy” surrounding the confirmation of the CIA director – and it’s a very muted controversy at that – shows just how extreme the degradation of US political culture is.

As a result of all of this, GOP Senator Rand Paul on Thursday sent a letter to Brennan vowing to filibuster his confirmation unless and until the White House answers this question. Noting the numerous times this question was previously posed to Brennan and Obama without getting an answer, Paul again wrote:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without trial?”

After adding that “I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no”, Paul wrote: “Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue.”

Yesterday, in response to my asking specifically about Paul’s letter, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said that while he is not yet ready to threaten a filibuster, he “shares those concerns”. He added: “Congress needs a better understanding of how the Executive Branch interprets the limits of its authorities.”

Indeed it does. In fact, it is repellent to think that any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee – which claims to conduct oversight over the intelligence community – would vote to confirm Obama’s CIA director while both the president and the nominee simply ignore their most basic question about what the president believes his own powers to be when it comes to targeting US citizens for assassination on US soil.

Udall also pointed to this New York Times article from yesterday detailing the growing anger on the part of several Democratic senators, including him, over the lack of transparency regarding the multiple legal opinions that purport to authorize the president’s assassination power. Not only does the Obama administration refuse to make these legal memoranda public – senators have been repeatedly demanding for more than full year to see them – but they only two weeks ago permitted members to look at two of those memos, but “were available to be viewed only for a limited time and only by senators themselves, not their lawyers and experts.” Said Udall in response to my questions yesterday: “Congress needs to fulfill its oversight function. This can’t happen when members only have a short time to review complicated legal documents — as I did two weeks ago — and without any expert staff assistance or access to delve more deeply into the details.”

Critically, the documents that are being concealed by the Obama administration are not operational plans or sensitive secrets. They are legal documents that, like the leaked white paper, simply purport to set forth the president’s legal powers of execution and assassination. As Democratic lawyers relentlessly pointed out when the Bush administration also concealed legal memos authorizing presidential powers, keeping such documents secret is literally tantamount to maintaining “secret law”. These are legal principles governing what the president can and cannot do – purported law – and US citizens are being barred from knowing what those legal claims are.

There is zero excuse for concealing these documents from the public (if there is any specific operational information, it can simply be redacted), and enormous harm that comes from doing so. As Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s first choice to lead the OLC, put it during the Bush years: use of “‘secret law’ threatens the effective functioning of American democracy” and “the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government.” No matter your views on drones and War on Terror assassinations, what possible justification is there for concealing the legal rationale that authorizes these policies and defines the limits on the president’s powers, if any?

You know who once claimed to understand the grave dangers from maintaining secret law? Barack Obama. On 16 April 2009, it was reported that Obama would announce whether he would declassify and release the Bush-era OLC memos that authorized torture. On that date, I wrote: “today is the most significant test yet determining the sincerity of Barack Obama’s commitment to restore the Constitution, transparency and the rule of law.” When it was announced that Obama would release those memos over the vehement objections of the CIA, I lavished him with praise for that, writing that “the significance of Obama’s decision to release those memos – and the political courage it took – shouldn’t be minimized”. The same lofty reasoning Obama invoked to release those Bush torture memos clearly applies to his own assassination memos, yet his vaunted belief in transparency when it comes to “secret law” obviously applies only to George Bush and not himself.

The reason this matters so much has nothing to do with whether you think Obama is preparing to start assassinating US citizens on US soil. That’s completely irrelevant to the question here. The reason this matters so much is because whatever presidential powers Obama establishes for himself become a permanent part of how the US government functions, and endures not only for the rest of his presidency but for subsequent ones as well.

What is vital to realize is that the DOJ “white paper” absolutely does not answer the question of whether the assassination power it justified extends to US soil. That memo addressed the question of whether the president has the legal authority to target US citizens for assassination where “capture is infeasible” and concluded that he does, but that does not mean that it would be illegal to do so where capture is feasible. Contrary to the claims of some commentators, such as Steve Vladeck, it is impossible to argue reasonably that the memo imposed a requirement of “infeasibility of capture” on Obama’s assassination power.

This could not be clearer: the DOJ memo expressly said that it was only addressing the issue of whether assassinations would be legal under the circumstances it was asked about, but that it was not opining on whether it would be legal in the absence of those circumstances. Just read its clear language in this regard: “This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful.” Again: the memo is not imposing “minimum requirements” on the president’s assassination powers, such as the requirement that capture be infeasible. For those who did not process the first time, the memo – in its very last paragraph – emphasizes this again:

doj white paperThat’s as conclusive as it gets: the DOJ white paper does not – does not – answer the question of whether the president’s assassination power extends to US soil. It does not impose the requirement that capture first be infeasible before the president can target someone for execution. It expressly says it is imposing no such requirements. To the contrary, it leaves open the question of whether the president has this power where capture is feasible – including on US soil. That’s precisely why these senators are demanding an answer to this question: because it’s not answered in this memo. And that’s precisely why the White House refuses to answer: because it does not want to foreclose powers that it believes it possesses, even if it has no current “intent” to exercise those powers.

The crux of this issue goes to the heart of almost every civil liberties assault under the War on Terror since it began. Once you accept that the US is fighting a “war” against The Terrorists, and that the “battlefield” in this “war” has no geographical limitations, then you are necessarily vesting the president with unlimited powers. You’re making him the functional equivalent of a monarch. That’s because it is almost impossible to impose meaningful limitations on a president’s war powers on a “battlefield”.

If you posit that the entire world is a “battlefield”, then you’re authorizing him to do anywhere in the world what he can do on a battlefield: kill, imprison, eavesdrop, detain – all without limits or oversight or accountability. That’s why “the-world-is-a-battlefield” theory was so radical and alarming (not to mention controversial) when David Addington, John Yoo and friends propagated it, and it’s no less menacing now that it’s become Democratic Party dogma as well.

Once you accept the premises of that DOJ white paper, there is no cogent limiting legal principle that would confine Obama’s assassination powers to foreign soil. If “the whole world is a battlefield”, then that necessarily includes US soil. The idea that assassinations will be used only where capture is “infeasible” is a political choice, not a legal principle. If the president has the power to kill anyone he claims is an “enemy combatant” in this “war”, including a US citizen, then there is no way to limit this power to situations where capture is infeasible.

This was always the question I repeatedly asked of Bush supporters who embraced this same War on Terror theory to justify all of his claimed powers: how can any cognizable limits be placed on that power, including as applied to US citizens on US soil (and indeed, the Bush administration did apply that theory to those circumstances, as when it arrested US citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago and then imprisoned him for several years in a military brig in South Carolina: all without charges). They did so on the same ground used by Obama now: the whole world is a battlefield, so the president’s power to detain people as “enemy combatants” is not geographically confined nor limited to foreign nationals.

Out of the good grace of his heart, or due to political expedience, Obama may decide to exercise this power only where he claims capture is infeasible, but there is no coherent legal reason that this power would be confined that way. The “global war” paradigm that has been normalized under two successive administrations all but compels that, as a legal matter, this power extend everywhere and to everyone. The only possible limitations are international law and the “due process” clause of the Constitution – and, in my view, that clearly bars presidential executions of US citizens no matter where they are as well as foreign nationals on US soil. But otherwise, once you accept the “global-battlefield” framework, then the scope of this presidential assassination power is limitless (this is to say nothing of how vague the standards in the DOJ “white paper” are when it comes to things like “imminence” and “feasibility of capture”, as the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson pointed out this week when suggesting that the DOJ white paper may authorize a president to kill US journalists who are preparing to write about leaks of national security secrets).

That this is even an issue – that this question even has to be asked and the president can so easily get away with refusing to answer – is a potent indicator of how quickly and easily even the most tyrannical powers become normalized. About all of this, Esquire’s Charles Pierce yesterday put it perfectly:

“This is why the argument many liberals are making – that the drone program is acceptable both morally and as a matter of practical politics because of the faith you have in the guy who happens to be presiding over it at the moment — is criminally naive, intellectually empty, and as false as blue money to the future. The powers we have allowed to leach away from their constitutional points of origin into that office have created in the presidency a foul strain of outlawry that (worse) is now seen as the proper order of things.

“If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the very nature of the presidency of the United States at its core has become the vehicle for permanently unlawful behavior. Every four years, we elect a new criminal because that’s become the precise job description.”

That language may sound extreme. But it’s actually mild when set next to the powers that the current president not only claims but has used. The fact that he does it all in secret – insists that even the “law” that authorizes him to do it cannot be seen by the public – is precisely why Pierce is so right when he says that “the very nature of the presidency of the United States at its core has become the vehicle for permanently unlawful behavior”. To allow a political leader to claim those kinds of of powers, and to exercise them in secret, guarantee chronic criminality.

Targeting US citizens v. foreign nationals

Whenever this issue is raised, people quite reasonably ask why there should be any difference in the reaction to targeting US citizens as opposed to foreign nationals. As a moral and ethical matter, and as a matter of international law, there is no difference whatsoever. I am every bit as opposed to targeting foreign nationals for due-process-free assassinations as I am US citizens, which is why I have devoted so much time and energy to opposing that policy. I also agree entirely with what Desmond Tutu recently said in response to calls for a special secret “court” to be created to review the targeting of US citizens for assassinations:

“Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it.

“I used to say of apartheid that it dehumanized its perpetrators as much as, if not more than, its victims. Your response as a society to Osama bin Laden and his followers threatens to undermine your moral standards and your humanity.”

But the explanation for why the targeting of US citizens receives distinct attention is two-fold: both political and legal. Politically, it is simply easier to induce one’s fellow citizens to care about an abusive power if you can persuade them that it will affect them and not merely those Foreign Others. It shouldn’t be that way, but the reality of human nature is that it is (recall how civil liberties and privacy concerns catapulted to the top of the news when US citizens generally – not just Muslims – were subjected to new invasive airport searches). So emphasizing that the assassination power extends to US citizens as well as foreign nationals can be an important instrument in battling indifference.

But there’s also a legal difference. As the Supreme Court has interpreted it, the US Constitution applies, roughly speaking, to two groups: (1) US citizens no matter where they are in the world, and (2) foreign nationals on US soil or US-controlled land (that’s why foreign Guantanamo detainees had to argue that the US had sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay in order to invoke the US Constitution’s habeas corpus guarantee against the US government). While international law certainly constraints what the US government may do to foreign nationals outside of land over which the US exercises sovereignty, the US Constitution, at least as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, does not. Moreover – not just for the US but for every nation – there is a unique danger that comes from a government acting repressively against its own citizens: that’s what shields those in power from challenge and renders the citizenry pacified and afraid.

The US policy of killing or imprisoning anyone it wants, anywhere in the world, is immoral and wrong in equal measure when applied to US citizens and foreign nationals, on US soil or in Yemen and Pakistan. But application of the power to US citizens on US soil does raise distinct constitutional problems, creates the opportunity to mobilize the citizenry against it, and poses specific political dangers. That’s why it is sometimes discussed separately.

Read original here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/22-3

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd criticized Monday the new fundraising efforts of President Obama’s dark money group, Organizing for Action, calling a scheme for high donors to meet regularly with Obama “the definition of selling access.”

Todd was describing the quarterly meetings that will be enjoyed by OFA’s $500,000 donors, the New York Times reported over the weekend:

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

“This just looks bad–it looks like the White House is selling access,” Todd said Monday. “It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

The perk was first reported by the Los Angeles Times earlier in February after a meeting between OFA leadership and top Los Angeles and Bay Area fundraisers for Obama’s reelection campaign.

OFA is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) and therefore not required to disclose the identities of its donors, nor the amounts they give. In addition to major campaign donors, the organization’s leadership has been courting corporate donors.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, struggled Monday to create a distinction between OFA and Obama before finally hurrying away from the podium during a press conference (a difficult point to make when one considers OFA’s website can be found at www.barackobama.com, Obama’s recycled campaign website).

Read original here: http://freebeacon.com/chuck-todd-on-ofa-fundraising-this-just-looks-bad/

Read about today’s press conference here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/carney-unable-defend-ofa-arragnment-hurries-away-podium_703230.html


  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated