Mar 182012

From a Tweeter Last night: This executive order, published on the White House website yesterday, gives the Obama regime power to take over . . . pretty much EVERYTHING, including agriculture, labor, energy, transportation (both interstate and intrastate) and commerce IN PEACETIME and NON-EMERGENCY conditions. Read it. Just commit a half hour and read the damn thing.

@mzagorski Obama regime is setting up the stage for murder & killings at OWS this spring. This is why this rat signed NDRP order yesterday

When it went viral on Twitter with all the guesses of what is hidden in there, millions began to pour over the language, finding hidden catch phrases. I went through hours until my eyes burned to put many of them here for you. What I gathered was the Top three reasons for this EO to be worded the way it was and what Obama was engineering or knew would happen and the cause for this EO so late on a Friday evening: I wish I could have gotten to this sooner, but it took a long time to compile and I had the terrific exposures of ‘Vetting Obama to get out. This is single-handedly the most important vetting or IMHO exactly why he implemented this EO NDRP!

The general consensus amongst hundreds:

1. The recent warning from Francis Fox Piven issuing a dark warning for ‘Surge From Bottom’ and The Occupy Wall Street movement is entering the phase where it “makes trouble.” “We’ll see action against the banks, against the corporations.” is the reason to keep US from onjecting or fighting. We will be the ones to be interred.

TOP-DOWN, BOTTOM UP and INSIDE OUT strategy talked about by Van Jones is coming to pass. Along with Jones’ incitment to get liberal progressive to act on his model, there have been stories published and written by Frances Fox Piven, again, inciting people to get mad at the government, in a sense, inciting unrest and riots, due in part to the economic conditions of our nation. This is what one would consider a well orchestrated “insurrection” by the mainstream media, unions and even the government. How will it end?

2. Israel declaring war on Iran. Netanyahu can not be swayed by Obama. So when we rise up to support Israel, same scenario.

3. He has a VERY good chance of losing in November. So what better way but to become the Dictator he dreams of becoming. like his heroes, then to suspend the election by creating any given number of scenarios. An executive order giving all power to the President in a time that he deems appropriate. Wonder if this is being prepared for the first Monday of November.

* Either a takeover, or Obama and Clinton have got their wet dream of disarming our defenses/arming our neighbors to the point that Iran, or Venezuela, or North Korea, or China, is going to launch a debilitating EMP attack.

ALL the power lies to him in this EO. ALL!

On Twitter it was mostly opinion because only one or two blogs/papers wrote on it. So I went to the place I learned my ethic for research from the experts at Free Republic. Honestly, most of us were freaking out the more we read the EO.

Here’s a small sampling of what Freepers were saying:

* Lock and load people, here it comes.

* The two Executive Orders revoked by this one and this one ,are child’s play compared to this monster. I would love for a presidential candidate to make noise about this.

* Back in Sept. 2011 0bama extended the National Emergency Act 2001 for another year. To expire 9/24/2012

See: Dangerous Executive Orders Still on the Books
Reference: Overlooked Language in NDAA (H.R. 1540 & S. 1867) and Oath Keepers Recall

The Section Of The NDAA That Is Causing People To Freak Out as Outrage Continues To Grow Online

~ I tweeted my 2 Senators and congress critter to tell them look what happened while you were sleeping. I also called the Capitol switchboard and tweeted some news folks.I believe if we all do this, well you know the drill, because we have locked and shutdown the Capitol switchboard many times. I also tweeted the GOP candidates with the same tweet.

We know he has torn the constitution apart piece by piece, but now this is a ‘major’ power grab for the potentate, whom I believe has committed treason and should immediately be taken out of our residence in handcuffs. I am so livid today and sick of his tactics.

A few more Freeper comments before I get to the title story:

* This is an interesting order to emerge considering current events on the world stage

* Read this one carefully, two or three times. “PART VI – LABOR REQUIREMENTS

* I have wondered why are there are these camps and why so many are popping up

* Message from the President Regarding the Continuation of the National Emergency (partial) The White House ^ | 9/9/2011 | Office of the Press Secretary

The following were the only two independent sources writing about the NDRP last night…

This Executive Order was posted on the web site on Friday, March 16, 2012, under the name National Defense Resources Preparedness. In a nutshell, it’s the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for “National Defense”, whatever they decide that is. It’s peacetime, because as the title of the order says, it’s for “Preparedness”. A copy of the entire order follows the end of this story.

Under this order the heads of these cabinet level positions; Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transporation (meaning any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available. This is probably why the government has been visiting farms with GPS devices, so they know exactly where to go when they turn this one on.

Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. They decide what necessary or appropriate means.

About all I can say is “Have a nice day!”

- source

Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

I gave you a lot to think about here and broke it down what may be hidden in this EO. But most of us know that Obama does not do anything without some nefarious purpose. I urge you to contact your Reps. and Senators. Keep contacting them until we start seeing/hearing some news on this. Contact the media. Our independent, conservative media has been contacted in droves. Keep it up. There ‘needs’ to be coverage. The Hill needs to take this serious and stop it! They can! I suggest contacting Darrel Issa. If he does not order an investigation then I JUST give up. But until we see if something is not being done, reminding them ‘if’ we do have our election, we will completely clean house! 11% Clean House!

~ JP

Also See:

~ I thank Char and BlackieSM for their input…

This video from Char is extensive and a MUST watch! It explains the NDRP and more!


Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!

* I Refuse to Give Up This Republic Without a Fight

* Obama Expands Use of Shadow Soldiers

From Blackie: New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness

~ Where it all Began: THE MARXIST ROOTS OF OBAMA’S RAGE Parts I & II

Mar 182012

Mar 182012 has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation’s most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s.

Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration.

The video of Holder’s remarks was uncovered by contributor Charles C. Johnson.

Mar 182012

by Ben Shapiro

Let’s take a trip via the wayback machine to the hallowed classrooms of the University of Chicago Law School. The year is 1996, and a young lecturer named Barack Obama is teaching constitutional law to a group of students. His first final exam question is about whether homosexuals can be barred from receiving state health care coverage for their infertility treatments.

The question deals with a hypothetical lesbian couple that wants to have a baby. Their state prevents health providers from providing infertility treatments for unwed couples; the couple’s state-provided healthcare therefore refuses them coverage for such procedures

Obama then presented an analysis of this question. That’s the way it works on law school constitutional law exams: you spot the issues, then offer an analysis of them. They never come down on one side or another. But they can give you important clues as to the way the student (or in this case, the lecturer) thinks.

Instead of wading through the legal thicket presented by any law school exam, let’s analyze Lecturer Obama’s main take. He makes the following points:

* The fundamental right at stake … goes well beyond issues of bodily integrity, but instead involves the broader principle that the government cannot be in the business of deciding who should bear children and who should not – at least without offering up some pretty compelling reasons for doing so.” Obama even compares a state law banning infertility treatment for unwed couples to active sterilization.

* In a particularly noteworthy comment, Obama writes: “the connection between restricting infertility services to married couples and ‘preserving the integrity of marriage’ is so tenuous that it cannot be considered a narrowly tailored means of serving that interest.” This is arguable at best – of course preventing unmarried couples from receiving infertility treatment would be closely related to upholding the notion of traditional marriage. But this Obama comment gives us a clue as to his real feelings about the institution of marriage: it has nothing to do with bearing and raising children.

* Obama cannot help himself: in discussing whether “tradition” should play a role in restricting the so-called rights liberals so enjoy, Obama calls such arguments “troubling.”

* Obama also gets in a slap at judicial originalists – judges who state that the original wording of the constitution must govern – and instead embraces a philosophy called legal realism. Legal realism holds that all judicial decisions are essentially excuses for judges to act out their politics. That’s true for leftists, who write their views into the constitution; it’s not true for conservatives, who abide by the constitution. But that’s not what Obama thinks: “What is safe to say is that the views of particular justices on the desirability of rearing in children [sic] in homosexual households would play a big part in the decision.”

~ Well, he sure has accomplished THAT hasn’t he?!

Here’s what we learn from this answer: Obama’s an extreme legal leftist. He thinks that banning infertility treatment for unwed couples is akin to sterilizing them. He thinks that there is no connection between childbearing and childrearing and the integral value of marriage. He thinks that arguments about “tradition” are troubling. And he believes that all judges rule according to their experiences – which goes a long way toward explaining his love for Sonia Sotomayor, whose “wise Latina” experiences may shape her judicial reasoning, according to her own admission.


More to come …Part II posted soon

Mar 182012

by Ben Shapiro

Yesterday, we explored President Barack Obama’s teachings at the University of Chicago Law School from 1996. We explored the first question (and answer) of his December 1996 final exam. Today, we move on to the second question.

To recap: question 1 revealed that President Obama does not believe that “tradition” is an important justification for laws; that he thinks childbearing and childrearing have almost nothing to do with marriage; and that legal realism is the way judicial decisions get made – i.e. that judges make decisions according to their own politics, rather than based on statute or law.

Question 2 is even more interesting, and sheds light on how deeply Obama was influenced by Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory.

This question concerns a fictional “Mayor Dudley Duright,” the first African-American mayor of Wazoo City. The population of the city is 50 percent black and 50 percent white, and highly segregated.

The Mayor decides to deal with two issues: racial disparities in city contracting, and racial disparities in the city’s Fire Department (foreshadowing the Ricci case, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor was overruled).

Obama’s fictional mayor hits on two solutions. To deal with city contracting, he takes money from Project HOPE (Obama’s already doing the hope thing) and uses it to help firms located principally in the “low-income community,” as a proxy for race.

To deal with the disparity in racial composition of the Fire Department, the Mayor implements a plan wherein everyone takes a basic competence exam, and then a lottery takes place to select firefighters. The firefighters’ union in the state of Wazoo quickly launches a referendum to stop the plan, and use one based on merit through testing.

So, are these measures constitutional? Let’s look to Obama’s answer sheet.

Here’s Obama’s analysis of the contracting plan:

* The first measure – the affirmative action contracting program – is constitutional, says Obama. Just because the Mayor knew that the plan would disproportionately benefit blacks “does not, by itself, prove invidious intent.” In this case, says Obama, the government is “simply interested in promoting opportunities for residents of poor communities, a disproportionate number of whom happen to be black.”

~ And Obama is following his own criticism and holding blacks down.

* The problem isn’t with the program, Obama says; it’s with white contractors’
“unwillingness to relocate into ‘low-income’ communities or hire ‘low-income workers.’”

* Overall, says Obama, “it would appear that under current Equal Protection doctrine, white plaintiffs would have a very difficult time proving that the Mayor’s plan is based on an invidious intent to discriminate against whites—a telling example, perhaps, of why an ‘intent’ test is now a particularly fruitful means of analyzing disparate impact claims in a society where the socio-economic disparities between the races are so stark, pervasive, and deeply rooted.” This seems vague, but what it’s saying is pure Critical Race Theory: in evaluating a law, we shouldn’t look to intent but to effect, because the system is simply so corrupt and perverse. This is the same logic underlying the Holder Justice Department’s attempt to shut down the Texas voter ID law : the notion that the system is too corrupt to allow for laws of neutral application to go forward.

And here’s Obama’s analysis of the Fire Department plan:

* First, he acknowledges that it will be difficult to get the referendum struck down.

* Then he launches into his real opinion – or what he calls his “more controversial” reading of the case law. The case law, Obama argues, “recognizes that blacks are burdened not only by intentional racism but also by racially neutral processes that nevertheless place blacks in a structurally subordinate position.” Affirmative action programs, Obama says, “help alleviate structural inequality.” While such programs aren’t constitutionally required, to Obama’s obvious chagrin (he scoffs at “the Court’s ‘negative charter of liberties’ reading of the Constitution and theories of judicial restraint”), he says that once implemented, they cannot be overruled. Why? Because the white majority cannot “change the rules of the game so as to make it more difficult for blacks and other minorities to achieve such affirmative programs through the give and take of the democratic process—by resort, for example, to state-wide initiatives and referendums in which minority influence is lessened.” This is a highly radical legal approach. It is based in critical race theory, which states that structural racism is inherent in the system; it is based in an anti-democratic notion that racial minorities must be allowed outsized influence over the process so as to prevent the white majority from reinforcing that structural racism. This is radical stuff.

~ He sure cares about his race by keeping them victimized and downtrodden.

* And it gets even more radical. Obama argues that the Mayor could say that “there are no pre-political, non-racial, ‘legitimate ways to select a tire [sic] department or determine ‘merit.’ The Mayor’s plan is ‘racial’ in the sense that it represents an affirmative effort to increase black representation on the police force without resorting to quotas or lowering standards of performance.” In fact, this purely racial program is “no more racial than is the union’s plan to maintain the status quo through a regime of written examinations.” Note the moral relativism here: Obama believes that a battery of non-discriminatory tests is as discriminatory as a clear affirmative action program.

* And Obama continues along these lines, reiterating his distrust for democracy: “The union is free to debate the pros and cons of the Mayor’s plan in the public square; it can put pressure on the City Council to block the Mayor’s proposal, and can organize to vote the Mayor out of office. What it cannot do is shift decision-making over these racially-charged issues to the state level, where (we assume) blacks have less of [sic] political clout.” In other words, you can vote on it; you can stump against it; what you cannot do is win by taking it to the people more broadly. Obama does admit that this newfangled approach will probably not fly with the Supreme Court.

So here’s what we’ve learned today. Lecturer Obama believed deeply in Critical Race Theory – so much so that he advocated creative legal strategies to argue Critical Race Theory into law. He thought that facially neutral statutes were discriminatory thanks to the racism of the system. He even argued that the people of the states be stripped of their power to change local law, if such changes cut against narrow minority interests.

More to come …Part III posted soon


Mar 182012

~ Violating YOUR rights…

by Ben Shapiro

Back when President Obama was lecturer Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, he gave final exams in constitutional law. We’ve already explored his questions and recommended answers from his first year, 1996, here and here.

Now it’s time to move on to lecturer Obama’s final from 1997. Once again, constitutional law exams work in a very specific way: the teacher presents an “issue-spotting” question, in which students are asked to provide analysis of a set of facts; the teacher then provides sample answers, so students know if they covered the issues.

Here’s the first question from Obama’s 1997 exam.

The situation is a cross between Dolly the Sheep and Terri Schiavo. Essentially, many years in the future, there’s a young woman, Dolly. After a car accident, Dolly enters into a severe vegetative state with no possibility of recovery. Her parents, Mary and Joseph (you have to love the carefully chosen anti-religious implications here), whom she has given joint authority over her in a living will, decide to pull the plug. They also decide that they want to clone her. The problem is that the state has passed a law against cloning. The second problem is that other states that allow cloning require consent of the cloning subject, unless the subject is a terminally ill child – and it’s unclear whether Dolly gave her consent, though she had no moral objections to cloning.

This presents a question: is there a constitutional right to cloning?

Here the analysis of Obama’s suggested answer:

* First, Obama suggests that there is a fundamental constitutional right to clone oneself. The precedent cases “all argue for a broad reading of the right at stake: a right to make decisions regarding childbearing free from government interference—at least absent a government showing that such interference is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.” Obama calls Justice Scalia’s argument that constitutional rights must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” a “cramped reading of the right to privacy.”

* Obama says that the case for Mary and Joseph being able to clone Dolly is a simple one: “Mary and Joseph’s claim of a ‘right to procreate’ through cloning is even more persuasive than Dolly’s since a) any cloned child would in fact be a product of Mary and Joseph’s genetic mixture; b) Mary and Joseph might have no other means of bearing a child genetically related to both of them; and c) the cloned embryo would be implanted in Mary’s womb and Mary would carry it to term like any traditional pregnancy.”

* Obama next examines the state’s interests in preventing cloning. He rejects nearly all of them, but focuses in particular on the state’s interest in “preserving the sanctity of life/family bonds.” The state, says Obama, probably doesn’t have a “compelling interest in preventing what it considers to be the ‘devaluation’ of human life that might result from cloning.” As to the family, Obama states, the state has no ability to restrict “an individual’s fundamental right to bear children or form a family solely on the basis of the state’s abstract judgment of what a family should look like.” The case law may support the first proposition in this sentence – that who bears children is not up to the state. But the second proposition – that forming a family is also not up to the state – is an early argument for gay marriage, which Obama surely realized.

~ Interesting being come full circle in 2012, he now supposedly defends a woman’s right to have contraceptives. WAKE UP Women! Your bodu is always being used by this president!

* Obama’s final conclusion: “to the extent that the Court is forced to grapple with such weighty issues, it might prefer to do so in the context of deciding whether cloning is or is not a fundamental right, rather than establish the troubling precedent that the state’s moral judgments, standing alone, can override an individual’s fundamental rights or liberty interests.” Obama, of course, has no such qualms about the state’s moral judgments with regard to birth control and forcing churches to provide it – but he doesn’t want the state that use “morality” as a measure in preventing controversial procedures like cloning.

~ Again he regulates instead of what the Constitution provides for us in the way of ‘legislate’.

So here’s what we’ve learned: Obama believes that the right to privacy should encompass everything up to and including cloning; he thinks that religious morality must be struck down by courts when implemented in law, even though it is supported by thousands of years of tradition; he believes that the state has no interest in family formation; he wants the state to implement morality only when it is his morality.

More Vetting to come …Breitbart

Mar 182012

Alexei Leonov, was the first man to “walk” in space on March 18, 1965. Though he was expected to become a professional artist, aviation beckoned and Leonov was soon flying jets and studying engineering. When the call came for Cosmonaut candidates in 1959, 25 year old Leonov was picked as one of the first 20 Cosmonauts.

~ We remember Terri. It is so hard to believe this was seven years ago:

Part 1 of 5 …

Part 2 of 5

Part 3 of 5

Part 4 of 5

Part 5 of 5

* Terri’s Story

January 23, 2006

Michael Schiavo, whose brain-damaged wife was at the center of a contentious end-of-life battle that played out on a worldwide media stage, has remarried, family members said.

Schiavo married his longtime girlfriend Jodi Centonze on Saturday in a private church ceremony, said John Centonze, the brother of the bride.

Schiavo’s former wife, Terri, died in March after her feeding tube was removed. She had suffered irreversible brain damage after collapsing at age 26 in 1990.

Schiavo and his new bride have two young children. They met in a dentist’s office about 11 years ago and began a relationship after Terri Schiavo was already in a nursing home.