An example of how the fish rots from its head:
Source: techdirty (from Abel Danger 1/8/14; post titled 'FBI Admits It's Not Really About Law Enforcement…')
"from the how-is-that-making-us-safer? dept
"A couple years ago, it was revealed that the FBI noted in one of its 'counterterrorism training manuals' that FBI agents could 'bend or suspend the law and impinge upon the freedoms of others,' which seemed kind of odd for a government agency who claimed its 'primary function' was 'law enforcement.' You'd think that playing by the rules would be kind of important. However, as John Hudson at Foreign Policy has noted, at some point last summer, the FBI quietly changed its fact sheet, so that it no longer says that 'law enforcement' is its primary function, replacing it with 'national security.'"
--
And speaking of the FBI's training manuals, there is also this, from the Judicial Watch's monthly newsletter 'Verdict' (article titled 'U.S. Government Purges Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed 'Offensive" to Muslims'):1
"On December 9, 2013, JW released a new special report on a dangerous campaign of political correctness that is ongoing within the federal government - a campaign that threatens our safety and national security. This report is entitled: 'U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed 'Offensive' to Muslims: Documentation and Analysis of Islamist Active Measures and Influence Operations targeting Anti-terrorism Training.'…
"The curricula purge…occurred following a February 8, 2012 meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and various Islamic organizations.
"The purge was part of a 'broader Islamic influence operation' designed to 'influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at large.' The Report also documents incidents of 'Islamic influence operations' at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.
"The following are examples of some of the material deemed 'offensive' and the reasons given by the FBI of purging the information:
* "'Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.' [Editor's Note: The Special Report reveals that in 2011, Mueller had described the Muslim Brotherhood as a group that supports terrorism in the U.S. and overseas.]"2
And on it goes, in that 'politically correct' vein; coming down to the statement:
"The Report also shows how these [PC] initiatives are possible. 'The Obama administration has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system' [my emphasis]. 'The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration's invitation.' Some of the more controversial figures associated with the Obama administration have included:…
* "'Daliah Mogahed - An advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Magahed's 2009 book, Who Speaks for Islam? is viewed by many as an apologia for the growing power and influence of radical Islamists. Mogahed is an unapologetic defender of unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR) and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)…" 3 [And speaking of:]
* "'Mohamed Magid - …President of the ISNA, an unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security's Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies...'"
And just so, the camel's nose under the tent…but to conclude this section of this sort-of expose; and to end it on a particularly 'offensive'-to-me note:
"JW's report hit a nerve and your Judicial Watch was called a 'hate group' by a spokesman for CAIR, which is one of the terrorist-front groups Judicial Watch further exposes in its new report…"
Ah yes, the old 'hate' card/smear-brush routine. Saul Alinsky would be proud of this generation of ideologues…It's all I can do to keep reminding myself that 'they' are God as well.
(God, getting in a dialogue with Himself (just for the sake of making a point; bear with me, ladies), says, 'That's hate speech. I won't have it.' And over here God says in reply to Himself (listening into the internal conversation between parts of Himself all the while), 'I resent your accusation. That's free speech. Get used to it.' And God over there says, 'Won't.' And God over here says, to Himself - i.e., you understand: to another part of Himself - over there: 'Well; tough.' And God over there gets very riled, and says to God over here: 'I'll make you stop.' And God over here replies to Himself over there, folding his figurative arms: 'Yeah? You and who else.' And God over there replies, 'I'll get the state to make you stop saying things like you just did.' And God over here says, ominously: 'Over my dead body.' And God over there replies: 'Well. That can be arranged.'...)
And so it goes. On and on; over and over. The different parts of God taking - playing - different parts in the process. Until we get it.
And move on.
And to 'move on' in here, to my next point before my conclusion.
This is also triggered from that same issue of the JW's 'Verdict' monthly; this one titled 'Judicial Watch Files Supreme Court Brief Challenging Unconstitutional Obama Appointments'.
This section I want to introduce by telling a little story. Years ago, in Southern California, the daily paper. in its local, Around Town column, carried a story about a man pulled over for going through a red light. When the officer gave him a chance to explain himself, he replied, 'I went through on the bllnk.' The officer blinked and, apparently under the influence of an 'I thought I had heard them all' moment, tore up the ticket he had started filling out, handed the man's driver's license back to him, closed his ticket book, and walked away.
We are starting not to fall under the sway of being impressed by Obama's audacity and rather seeing it for what it really is: effrontery. Arrogance. Cockiness, born of a huge ego.
The article opens (beautifully put): "Upon ascending to the White House, President Obama realized something very important about imposing his agenda: personnel is policy. if the president was going to 'fundamentally transform' America, as he promised, he was going to need to surround himself with the most radically left-wing appointees he could find.
"Of course, when it comes to appointing high level officials with great power and responsibility, the Constitution has a process designed to make certain that the U.S. Senate can act as a check on the Executive Branch by requiring Senate confirmation for these powerful government positions.
"But the president knew full well his radical friends wouldn't make it through the Senate vetting process. So he simply ignored the law and the U.S. Constitution and appointed them without bothering to wait for Senate approval.
"Case in point: The unconstitutional 'recess appointments' used to install three individuals to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)…"
I won't bore you with the details, The essence of the matter: Obama and his (hard left; see the Klein-Elliott 'Red Army' book mentioned in the footnotes) advisers decided to try a fudge, based on executive precedent: "Though previous presidents have made intrasession recess appointments 'if they are of substantial length,' the Obama administration was the first to make such appointments during pro forma sessions of the Senate…"
Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has seen the law the same coherent way. ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional: "Although the Recess Appointments Clause allows a president to fill vacancies occurring while Congress is in recess, [in this case] the Senate met in pro forma meetings every three business days. The Appeals Court, therefore, determined that the Senate was not in recess on the days the Senate did not meet because for the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause 'recess' is defined as the time between rather than within sessions of Congress…." [emphases mine]
Sounds clear enough; right? But you haven't counted on drivers who think they can go through red lights on the blink - and get away with it…
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Appeals Court's ruling, and thus there is still a chance that these Red Army s.ob.'s will get away with their attempt here to hijack the country from its roots in the rule of law/the Constitution, and install Obama as The Dear Leader, aka The Great Pretender. For, the SCOTUS has - so far - failed to be willing to hear arguments on the same sort of case regarding another issue of definitions; seemingly small, but with great potential impact. I refer to the definition of a 'natural born citizen' (as opposed to any other kind of citizen), which the Constitution requires as a qualification for the office of the presidency - and that particular federal office ONLY. For a good reason.4
The man currently occupying the office of the presidency of the nation is not a legally sitting president. He is a usurper. Moreover, he is a particularly dangerous usurper: for the big ego that he has demonstrated, over and over and over again, while in that seat of such immense power.
He has to go.
--
My summary conclusion to this blog.
This man is not a law unto himself. He has not demonstrated the requisite morality of character to be able to do that, be that, with integrity. He is reckless, with willful disregard for individual rights. He needs to be told: 'Barack Hussein Obama (or whatever your legal name is): you haven't qualified to be that sort of leader of people. You can't be trusted with such power. Move aside. And get some seasoning first, as what you are essentially, along with the rest of us: a spiritual being having a human experience. And needing to put first things first.'
---
footnotes:
1 A non-profit, conservative-oriented but nonpartisan legal watchdog, JW's strap mission statement: 'Because no one is above the law'. That goes for trespassers of 'the law'/the Constitution from both sides of the political aisle.
2 Which a lot of experts on the subject continue to do so as well; but space doesn't permit me to go down that rabbit hole any further here. Other than to say that someone obviously got to Mueller. I wonder who. Well, for one good guess, there's his boss.
His direct boss. And his boss's boss. The Big Enchilada himself. Stuffing himself with the sense of power.
Before his great fall.
Before his great fall.
3 Note: Other good sources of information along these 'front' lines are the trilogy of books by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott: 1) 'The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists' (2010); 2) 'Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated To Save America' (2011); and 3) 'Impeachable Offenses: The Case For Removing Barack Obama From Office' (2013). The latter book is particularly informative in this specific regard, of Muslim front organizations.
4 It's obvious what they had in mind. Particularly as the president was to be as well the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, they did not want anyone in that position with conflicting loyalties or allegiances.
Like, oh, say: a dual citizen.
Like, oh, say: Barack Hussein Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment