Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘oppression’

Report: Directive Details Obama’s Plan to Use Military Force Against Americans within the U.S.


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/29/report-directive-details-obamas-plan-to-use-military-force-against-americans-within-the-u-s/

May 29, 2014 By

Obama-Angry
On July 2, 2008, then candidate Barack Obama made a shocking statement that caused alarms of concern to go off for many Americans around the country.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Reports of government agencies, from the Postal Service to the EPA and BLM, buying large amounts of high-powered ammunition fed fuel to the fire of wondering how Obama would use such a force. The BLM invasion of the Cliven Bundy Ranch gave some insight into that question. Now, according to a report by the Washington Times, Obama not only has government agencies developing their own police forces, but he has a directive issued on December 29, 2010 that gives him the power to use military force against American civilians in the United States.

“One more time; “…..he has a directive issued on December 29, 2010 that gives him the power to use military force against American civilians in the United States.” JB

Comming Soon 02

This directive, No. 3025.18, is called the “Defense Support of Civil Authorities.” It not only gives Obama the power to use the force of Are You Considered a terroristthe military against Americans, but also says that federal military commanders have such authority if prior authorization by the president is not possible. Such action can be taken during times deemed to be ‘civil unrest.’

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

police_stateThis directive also gives the secretary of defense the authorization to use unarmed drones, but bans drones that can fire missiles.

The Washington Times continues their report by addressing the militarization of government agencies under the Obama regime and the impact of that on civil liberties. 

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counter narcotics efforts. 

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include;

  • the Department of Agriculture,
  • the Railroad Retirement Board,
  • the Tennessee Valley Authority,
  • the Office of Personnel Management,
  • the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
  • the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • and the Education Department.

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

The detailing of this directive that was put into effect in 2010 will bring into question the validity of two claims that were made last year that were written off by many as ‘conspiracy theories.’ The first was the allegation, as reported by The Blaze;

  • that Obama was purging the military of commanders who didn’t agree with his ideology.
  • The second, which actually ties into the first, was the claim that the litmus test for which military leaders would be allowed to stay was whether or not they would fire on citizens.
  • According to Dr. Jim Garrow, an author and humanitarian, those who would not agree to fire on American citizens were let go.

Comming Soon 02

While those reports and allegations were written off as untrue, this directive giving Obama the power to use military force against Americans certainly gives them more credibility.

“Follow this link No. 3025.18, and you can read the directive for yourself.” JB

Do you believe that the current administration would use military force against American citizens? Take the Official Tea Party Poll. Click HERE!30 Witnesses disappearGathering Storm

2VOTE 02

 

 

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

TPNN EXCLUSIVE: Dinesh D’Souza Calls Out Obama Administration for Mafia-Style Tactics


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/19/tpnn-exclusive-dinesh-dsouza-calls-out-obama-administration-for-mafia-style-tactics/

March 19, 2014 By Greg Campbell

 

Dinesh
Conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who earned much praise from conservatives for his documentary “2016: Obama’s America” spoke with The Tea Party News Network regarding his current battle with Obama’s Justice Department and the nature of the Obama Administration’s willingness to deal with political dissent through brute force.
 
In January, D’Souza was indicted for alleged campaign finance law violations. Prosecutors charge that D’Souza used straw donors to provide money to a U.S. Senate candidate in 2012.
 
TPNN met up with D’Souza and asked about the legal battle and questioned if the indictment was politically-motivated given his outspoken views on President Obama.
 
D’Souza responded that he is trying to avoid saying anything directly about the pending legal actions, but noted that the Obama Administration has a history of dealing with political dissent with force.
 
“I do think that Obama was unnerved by ‘2016,’” D’Souza began. “We know that because he had a diatribe about it on his website, BarackObama.com. I can also see from just looking around that the government has been using its power to target its opponents.
 

This is kind of an Alinsky-ite strategy. [Saul] Alinsky came up in Chicago and Alinsky says that he learned a lot of his tactics from the mafia and he points out that the way to win in politics is not to treat your opponent as a well-meaning good guy, but to make him a bad guy; treat him not as a critic, but an enemy. And that seems to be the modus operandi of this administration.”

 
D’Souza’s criticism comes as Obama’s IRS remains under fire after it was revealed that for years, the tax-collecting agency targeted Tea Party and conservative groups for harassment prior to and after the 2012 re-election bid.
 

D’Souza and many other conservatives have long pointed to Saul Alinsky as a model for Obama’s political strategy. Alinsky advocated a radical brand of politics that focuses on seizing and maintaining political power as a means of creating radical change in society and government.

 
 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Must Everything — Everything? — Be Politicized Nowadays??


http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/must-everything-everything-politicized/#H6xxdhafRwUct08P.99

By / 28 February 2014

nanny

When, exactly, did every ridiculous little aspect of our lives become a “political” issue?

I can’t be the only  one who remembers a time when the government didn’t care if I wore a bike helmet, or ate a bag of chips.  In fact, we had a lot of latitude before political activism came and spoiled the fun.

There was a time when you could order a chicken dinner, without it being a political statement, or when pro sports were just interested in how well you played the game.

There was a time when a lemonade stand could be a kid’s first business venture, without some bureaucratic rules-lawyer killing that dream with zoning laws.

Maybe you can remember when a scout’s biggest worry was poison ivy, not political indoctrination. That was back before boy scouts (Canada) became co-ed and girl scouts (USA) supported Planned Parenthood.

Do you remember a time when useful products weren’t outlawed on the basis of contested health studies — BPA, for instance?

Do you remember a time when we weren’t drowning in fine print and waivers?  A time when people could tell a joke — even an off-colour one — without offending someone?  Did people just have a better sense of humor back then?  Were they less uptight?

Have we really come to a place where a 26 year old gold medallist with a wife and kid has an “alternative lifestyle”?

It wasn’t that long ago when some feared religious people holding government positions, because it was alleged that they “wanted to control everything”.  The worry was that they would “cram the Bible down our throats”, and curtail everyone’s freedoms.  They would meddle in people’s lives where they had no business doing so.

People obviously believed the hype.  Those with known religious convictions (unless decidedly “liberal”) were increasingly edged out of influential positions.

Whatever the underlying causes, the paradigm shift has taken place, and people hostile to the earlier conservative and/or religious convictions have taken the reigns.

What was that accusation, again?  Oh, yes.  “If you let those crazy Christians into government, they’ll create a Theocracy!”

This alleged Theocracy would be a Bad Thing, as the story goes, because they would insist on controlling every detail of your personal life.  They would (gasp!) moralize, and finger-wag!  Imagine the horror!

In one sphere of society after another, agents hostile to traditional values have used tried-and-true tactics to gain an upper hand.

What were their strategies?  Surely you’ve seen them in action:

Don’t try to win the argument, it’s better to just discredit the person you’re arguing with, and win by default…  Emotional appeal, sarcasm, and innuendo are always better than honest debate…  Have a TV panel of three guests dog-pile on one token conservative, so their view seems foolish and minority… Shout them down… Call them fascists…  Claim religious convictions invalidate their argument… Play the victim card! Don’t worry about “playing fair”… Tactics don’t matter so long as you win.

But then came the bait-and-switch. Our “liberators” started to dictate things — lots of things.  The meddling and scheming they had long accused others of became their primary means of remaking the world in their image.

Every time these guys raise an issue, they dress it in political clothing.  Why?  Because political problems will always require a political solution.

Observe: In 1969, Canadian sodomy laws were stuck down on the grounds that (and I quote) “There’s no place for the State in the bedrooms of the nation.”  Since nobody was actually enforcing those laws anyway, that seemed a reasonable response. Fast forward 40 some-odd years, to when foreign policy is being decided based on American opinion of ANOTHER nation’s domestic policies concerning what may or may not happen in the bedrooms of THOSE nations.

See what just happened?  See how quickly we went from “don’t force your values on me” to demanding that other countries comply to values they do not hold?  Just a little bit hypocritical, hmmm?  Their own buzzword for such action is “Imperialistic”.

It isn’t just sex, either.  Every issue is potentially political. From food labeling and health care to leisure pursuits, education, and it extends over a whole range of various products and services.  It goes right down to our supposed freedom of speech, whether on the sports field (NFL) or even what language your company’s Facebook page can be written in.

Once an issue is made political, you have adequate pretext for two things.

First, you can shut down most opposition with the convenient — albeit inaccurate — “separation of Church and State” mantra.  (This allows the next step to proceed unopposed.)

Next, they claim that this “political” issue will require a political solution.

(Everything is political for these guys.  Politics IS their religion, and it’s a religion that will tolerate no rivals.)

This means legislation, control, bigger government, and ultimately, forced compliance for their version of the Utopian Dream.

Curiously, however, this Utopia is always “just over that next hill”.  You know, it’s the hill where their next rival is making a stand.

There will always be a scapegoat. There will always be a victim.  It’s part of the formula they use. Then, once the dust settles, there will always, ALWAYS, be that much more power concentrated in the hands of those who crave it most.

You know those freedoms conservatives and Christians keep defending?

You don’t really need those, they’ll only slow down the “progress”.

Forward, Comrade! Forward!

Image: Courtesy of: http://blogs.plos.org/globalhealth/2013/11/jojewell2/

About the author: Wes Walker

 Wes Walker is a Christian husband and father of three, bringing the Clash Attitude to Canada’s Capital. When not writing submissions for Clash, he is involved in Church, his children’s school, and is pursuing interests in Theology, History, and Philosophy.
Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/must-everything-everything-politicized/#H6xxdhafRwUct08P.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud