Daily Archives: December 23, 2011

12/23/11

A Nation Divided

By: Henry Lamb
Gulag Bound

Congressional Republicans refuse to consider any so-called jobs bill that contains a tax increase that penalizes the successful. The President and his Democratic allies refuse to consider any jobs bill that does not include another tax on the wealthy. This division, so vividly portrayed in Washington, reflects a division that threatens the nation.

anarcho-communist symbology

That division is amplified by thousands of people who are now occupying Wall Street, Oakland, Denver, and various other locations. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in general, embrace these protesters. Their embrace includes the Socialist Party, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, anarchists, people who destroy private property for fun, who defecate on police cars and the American flag, and people who wallow in sex and drug-filled squalor.

This movement is also embraced by many labor unions. At the root of the protest is the commitment to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” by ending capitalism and replacing it with a government-managed economy.

The other side of the great divide is reflected in the Tea Party movement that began a couple of years ago. The goal of this movement is very clear: to return the nation to its Constitutional foundation by reducing taxes; ending the deficit; and reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Tea Parties have assembled peacefully in various places around the country, and then returned to their homes and jobs — and to study groups to organize a more effective campaign to rid the government of those who wish to transform it.

These two philosophical extremes divide the nation as it has not been divided for a hundred years — since the presidential campaign of 1912. Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who served as President from 1901 to 1909, was followed by his Vice President William H. Taft, until the election of 1912. Woodrow Wilson, the “Progressive” Democrat, won the election in 1912 because Roosevelt had a falling-out with Taft, and created the “Bull Moose” party and ran as a third-party candidate.

Like the election in 1912, the election in 2012 will set America’s course for another hundred years. Like the election in 1912, a third-party campaign will surely result in electing Obama again, and insuring an American future of more government management and control that will surely “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into the socialist or communist nation the Occupy Wall Street crowd advocates.

The election of 1912 brought the Federal Reserve; the income tax authorized by the 16th Amendment; and the rejection of the states from the business of the federal government by the 17th Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to “…coin money, and regulate the value thereof….” Under the influence of Progressive Woodrow Wilson, Congress gave that power to the Federal Reserve, which now virtually controls the economic destiny of the nation.

Exercising an imagined wisdom greater than that of the Founders, Progressives enacted The 16th Amendment which gave the federal government the power to tax individuals — unequally. Consequently, the top 10 percent of wage earners ($112,000 or more) pay 70 percent of all taxes. Half the wage earners ($32,000 and less) contribute only two percent to the total revenue. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Congressional Democrats and the Wall Street occupiers insist that the “rich” pay an even greater portion of the bill. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Congressional Democrats know that the recipients of government largesse are sure to vote for those who continue to take wealth from the people who have been successful and distribute it to those who have not.

Exercising an imagined wisdom greater than that of the Founders, Progressives enacted the 17th Amendment which kicked the states completely out of the federal government. Consequently, states have become administrative units that function at the behest of the federal government. (Learn the full impact of the 17th Amendment here.)

Republicans, on the other hand, are demanding fiscal responsibility, drastic tax reform, massive cuts in the national deficit, and a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. All Republicans sing this same song, each with a slightly different meter and melody. The election in 2012 will decide whether the nation will continue on the road toward socialism, communism, and complete government control, or abandon this failed philosophy, and return to the principles of freedom enshrined in the U.S, Constitution. Without question, the 2012 election is the most important election in a century, since 1912 when Woodrow Wilson took control and imposed the Progressive philosophy that has stifled the economy and enslaved so many Americans.

It matters less which Republican gets elected than getting a President who is not Barack Hussein Obama. Thanks to the Tea Parties, and Obama’s blatant failures, the Republicans have a good chance of reclaiming the White House and the Senate, unless someone pulls a Theodore Roosevelt.

Should one of the Republican candidates not like the candidate chosen through the primary process, and decide to run as a third-party candidate, Obama will win and remain in the White House. The nation will continue on the road to collectivist ruin.

A nation (or a political party) that is divided cannot stand.

Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc.

Graphics added by Gulag Bound

Gulag Note: The great problem with the divide is that it becomes the means for step by step destruction of America, by the Marxian method of the manipulated dialectic:

Flowchart showing structure of Hegelian dialectics, anonymous source, wikipedia

12/23/11

Is the Constitution Partisan?

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

Jan. 20, 2009, Inauguration: Obama takes Oath of Office, first go-round

All public officials, elected or appointed, federal, state and local, take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. This is supposed to remind them and us that the Constitution stands above politics, and our primary loyalty is to the rule of law itself, not to any party, program or political agenda. But the dirty little secret of American politics is that the American left thinks this oath and this loyalty is quaint, obsolete and irrelevant to the goals of “social justice.”

Most university political science classes teach that this super-majority requirement for amending the Constitution is “undemocratic,” and indeed, it is, if democracy is defined as rule by majority vote. But the founders wanted checks on simple majority rule, which is why we have such super-majority features in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Senate gives each state two votes – hardly democratic in terms of the small population of some of those states. But such features were essential cornerstones of the representative republic created by the founders. As Jefferson said, “An elective despotism is not what we fought for.”

Beginning in the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, the American left has waged a sustained campaign to change the Constitution to remove all the impediments to the collectivist agenda. The cumulative effect of this century-long war of attrition is a decline in public understanding and support for the Constitution. Today, we have arrived at a point where public reverence and respect for constitutional restraints on government are dismissed by the mainstream media and progressives as a “partisan political ploy.” They say constitutional arguments are insincere and “divisive.”

This trend is most visible in the public debate over Obamacare. The question of whether or not the law is constitutional has itself become a political question: partisan supporters of the proposal dismiss that question as a mere partisan maneuver to block a needed social program. A substantive debate over the constitutional questions has been belittled and resisted.

The shocking thing is that no one is shocked to hear congressional advocates for Obamacare say, in words almost this blunt, the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean. The cynicism behind such statements is unfortunate, but the most dangerous aspect of the debate is this: They really do believe it. What is more frightening still is this: The only real-world check on this anti-constitutional arrogance is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The governors or attorneys-general in 26 states are challenging certain key elements of Obamacare – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – on constitutional grounds. The lawsuit is itself revealing. When we look at the 26 states involved, we see that not one of the eight states east of the Delaware River has joined the lawsuit. If we look closer, we also notice that not a single Democratic governor has joined the lawsuit. Either Democrat governors see no constitutional barrier to this federal takeover of health care – or they think any constitutional barrier should be ignored.

This observation brings us full circle to the question – is the Constitution a partisan document as so many Democrats seem to believe? If a progressive Democrat believes that no constitutional provision should ever block the progressive agenda, whether in health care, education, or Second Amendment rights, is he not committing perjury when he takes the oath to preserve and defend the Constitution?

Other difficult and disturbing questions arise for conservatives when the Constitution is interpreted by progressive jurists to permit the unlimited expansion of government. When the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the “living constitution” theory of jurisprudence, there is little to stand in the way of new government intrusions into private rights and liberties. How long can this pattern continue before the reverence and loyalty to the Constitution by ordinary citizens is undermined?

If the Constitution loses its exalted non-partisan status and comes to be viewed as just another camouflage for tyranny, what arguments or principles will restrain citizens from following Thomas Jefferson’s admonition in the Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The progressives’ assault on the Constitution, their flagrant disregard for its principles and restrictions, is in truth an assault on the foundations of ordered liberty. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Obama administration and decides that Obamacare is authorized by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, then there is no limit to what the government may do in any sphere. That decision would give all citizens, Democrat, Republican and independent, reason for sleepless nights.

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.

Graphics and video below added by Gulag Bound

Published on the Internet by Naked Emperor News before the 2008 General Election, concerning Barack Obama’s opposition to the United States Constitution :


Video, “Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered“

12/23/11

DOJ Persecution of Diaz Family, Border Patrol Agents, Continues

By: Marla Gillaspie
Gulag Bound

We begin with a news release from the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC), then show more of the story, providing further context.

DOJ Sticks It to Diaz Family Again

LEOAC was informed that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons personnel at the Federal Correctional Institution where Border Patrol Agent Jesus E. “Chito” Diaz, Jr. is serving his prison sentence (withheld for his safety) has informed him that he cannot go home to a house with a weapon. That to do so would be a violation of his probation, and that he would be returned to prison.

Agent Diaz’ wife Diana is a Field Operations Supervisor Border Patrol Agent in Del Rio Border Patrol Sector (Texas) having served for 15 years. Also, Agent Diaz’ brother Luis is also a Border Patrol Agent serving in the El Paso Sector (New Mexico/West Texas). They have a number of fellow law enforcement officers in their family. Agents have firearms in their possession per their duties and the dangers posed to them as federal law enforcement officers.

So at this point, Agent Diaz was informed that Diana would have to do something about her weapon.

We at LEOAC fully understand why this rule would ordinarily apply to the so-called “normal convicted felon”. However, this case was a complete overreach as a prosecution, contained false allegations starting with the fact that then-juvenile narco-trafficker and illegal alien “Bernal” was labeled by the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility inves the numerous conflicting statements and outright admissions of perjury (lying) for which none of them were charged by the government unlike Agent Diaz whose story never changed and the fact that Judge Alia Moses filtered evidence during the trials heard by the jury. All of which ensured the conviction of an innocent Border Patrol Agent while the real criminals were made out to be victims and protected by the U.S. and Mexican Governments.

During the bond hearing where Agent Diaz was requesting release post-trial under bond, Judge Moses denied his request and stated that he was a “danger to the community” though as stated previously the statements used against Agent Diaz were conflicting and false on the part of his accusers.

What will DOJ do next to the Diaz family? Will they not be satisfied until they have forced Diana into an early retirement, which given her age is highly unlikely? Or do they want to see Chito and Diana divorced? Isn’t it enough that they’ve destroyed Chito’s name and reputation? Isn’t it enough that they’ve engaged in an attack on Diana?s career as a 15 year BP Agent that has resulted in further promotion and advancement to be halted, the details of which cannot be disclosed due to privacy concerns?

Read Duncan Hunter’s letter to President Obama, November 17, 2011, concerning this injustice

THE BACKGROUND: BORDER PATROL AGENTS PROSECUTED TO APPEASE MEXICO

By Tom Tancredo

See these two videos:


Video: “Lou Dobbs Tonight with guest BP Agent Diana Diaz – Fox Business.wmv“


Video: “Rep. Ted Poe Speaks on BPA Diaz Case“

Another Border Patrol agent on the southwest border is facing a long prison sentence for doing his job. Isn’t it amazing how this happens only on the southwest border and never the Canadian border?

Veteran agent Jesus Diaz faces a sentence of five to 25 years in federal prison for “mistreating” an illegal alien who was apprehended crossing the border near Eagle Pass, Texas, in 2008. The man was handcuffed, and allegedly, Diaz lifted his handcuffs to force him to the ground because he was not cooperative. For this “offense” Diaz was prosecuted by U.S. attorney for the West Texas region, <strong>Johnny Sutton</strong>, and convicted and will be sentenced in September.

Diaz’s “victim,” who was carrying a backpack with 50 pounds of marijuana at the time, was subsequently given a visa and is free to enter and leave the U.S. any time he chooses.

United States Attorney Johnny Sutton, Western ...

We remember U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton as the prosecutor in the Ramos and Compean case. Border Patrol officers Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos went to prison and later had their sentences commuted by President Bush in January 2009. The “victim” in their case, a well-known smuggler named Oswaldo Aldrete-Davila, also got a visa but – surprise! – was later arrested and convicted for drug smuggling.

These two Border Patrol prosecutions have more in common than the eternal vigilance of Johnny Sutton. In these cases and many others, the U.S. attorney’s office was responding to protests from the Mexican government that its citizens were being mistreated by Border Patrol agents.

In 2008 the U.S. attorney’s office in southern Arizona declined to prosecute a Border Patrol agent after he accidentally killed an illegal alien who was in a group of four he was trying to subdue a hundred yards from the border fence near Naco, Ariz. But in this instance, the local Cochise County attorney decided to prosecute the agent under state law after the Mexican government protested the lack of action against the agent. He was prosecuted twice, but when both juries ended in deadlock, the government gave up trying to put him in prison. The family of the Mexican national who had been killed then sued the Border Patrol agent for damages in civil court.

In San Diego last month, an illegal alien was shot by a Border Patrol agent in self-defense after a group of illegal aliens came at him with cement blocks that had nails embedded in them. The man who was shot had a long criminal history and had been deported twice, yet the Mexican government is demanding prosecution of the Border Patrol officer involved.

In Texas this week, a “Mexican citizen” was executed for the brutal murder of a teenage girl he had met at a party. He confessed his crime, was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection. In the last weeks before the scheduled July 7 execution, President Obama got involved and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to order Texas to delay the execution. Why? Because the man had not been advised before trial that under a U.S. treaty with Mexico, as a citizen of Mexico he had a right to ask for assistance from the Mexican government. He confessed his crime and had a fair trial in every respect, but the government of Mexico was offended.

In response to the Mexican protests, Obama asked the Supreme Court to delay the execution so Congress can have time to pass a law ordering Texas to give the man a new trial. You heard that right: Obama asked the court to rule on the basis of a law that had not yet been enacted – and may never be enacted. Five justices of the court ignored Obama, as did the state of Texas. Two cheers for Texas!

Why do we see this acute sensitivity to the wishes and interests of the corrupt government of Mexico in matters of U.S. criminal law and U.S. border security? This is almost laughable, but to the 20,400 officers of the Border Patrol, it is more than a nuisance. It is a threat held over their heads daily. Rock-throwing incidents and other physical assaults on Border Patrol officers have increased dramatically in recent years.

It is a well-established fact that the Mexican military and Mexican law enforcement at both the state and local levels is thoroughly penetrated by the drug cartels – yet the Border Patrol and the sheriffs of border counties are required to “collaborate” and cooperate with Mexican agencies.

About 1,000 illegal aliens are apprehended on a typical day on the southwest border. In each Border Patrol station, as these trespassers are processed for “voluntary removal,” the nearest Mexican consulate must be called and allowed to interview the illegal interlopers to determine if any person was mistreated. To the Border Patrol agent walking the line, this is a recipe for manufacturing allegations of misconduct.

The government of Mexico should focus its efforts on getting its own house in order. After that has been accomplished, and after they stop encouraging and facilitating “northward migration,” we might be interested in their opinions on the American criminal justice system.

Graphics added by Gulag Bound

12/23/11

Why? ‘Sniper Detectors Coming to America’s Heartland’

Gulag Bound

The militarization of policing and the pervasiveness of surveillance continue, even as America welcomes more and more Muslim immigrants from nations such as Somalia and Libya.

If the powers that be are not afraid of militant Islamists, why are they mapping out our country as a “battleground?”

Are we starting to get the picture, why this grand, global exercise is not called the War on Militant Islamism, but merely, the War on Terror?

Does it help, to see what Americans are being labeled as suspected terrorists by the Department of Homeland Security?

See the appropriate category tags to this entry, for more.

At Fox News:

Sniper Detectors Coming to America’s Heartland

By
Published December 22, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Gunshots ring out in the dead of night, and not a single person reports it. Yet police know exactly where the shots came from, even before they arrive on the scene.

It sounds like a scene from The Minority Report, but it’s real. A new technology called ShotSpotter enables law enforcement officials to precisely and instantaneously locate shooters, and it has been quietly rolling out across America. From Long Island, N.Y., to San Francisco, Calif., more than 60 cities in the U.S. have been leveraging ShotSpotter to make their streets safer.

Minneapolis has already adopted it. And this past week three more cities from the heartland — Flint, Mich.; Youngstown, Ohio; and Omaha, Neb. — have begun testing or furthered plans to roll it out.

The Youngstown Police Department decided to go very public by posting frank warning signs, such as this one at the Youngstown Elementary School:

“If You Fire a Gun, We Will Find You.”

ShotSpotter relies on wide-area acoustic surveillance and GPS technology to triangulate the source of gunshots…

continues

12/23/11

The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results – 12/23/11

The Watcher’s Council

Christmas is just around the corner and I and all of my colleagues here at the Watcher’s Council want to take this time to wish you a merry and blessed Christmas, with all the warmth and happiness that goes with this time of year:

But wait, there’s more!

Christmas Day just also happens to be special for another reason… it’s the birthday of our own Dave Schuler, The Glittering Eye!

Now, I’ve known Dave in an online sense ever since I first became part of the madness known as the Watcher’s Council and I’ve never ceased to appreciate his good humor, his renaissance approach to a myriad amount of interests and his willingness to lend a hand when needed. Most of all, he’s put up with me all this time… many happy returns, Dave!

But wait, there’s still more…

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and yes, we have this week’s Watcher’s Council winners!

This week’s winner, The Noisy Room’s Syria – The Tipping Point Into Hell, was an excellent examination of exactly why America intervening in Syria’s civil war is a really bad idea, especially since the Muslim Brotherhood is now spearheading the Syrian opposition. Here’s a slice:

Ask yourself, what happens if we intervene in Syria? Nothing good will come of it. As the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine raises its rough countenance and swivels its sights towards Syria, America should pause and consider where this road leads. Straight to a world war drawing in Iran, Russia and China, courtesy of the Obama administration and its thuggish goons.

I have no love for the Ayatollahs and the whack jobs that rule Iran. War with them is almost a foregone conclusion, primarily because we never had the backbone to take out their nuclear ambitions or smack them for their terrorist forays. That confrontation is coming and will rock the world. However, sticking our nose into Syria as we did in Libya, will poke the badger, so to speak. You won’t free Syria from a tyrant, you’ll solidify Islamic radicalism and embolden it. Iran will not let it go, they are vested in Syria and will step in to dance with us almost immediately. Russia is using Iran for all they are worth and will back them in conflict, as will the Chinese. That’s your formula for the war to end all wars, considering how Obama and Panetta have neutered a great deal of our military muscle. It will also get many Christians slaughtered in Syria, but our Marxist-in-Chief cares little about that I would wager.

Think of Russia as the Mob and Iran as one of their enforcers. Russia is angling for control in the Middle East and Europe. You would not want to play Risk with these guys, trust me. They will let the Islamic extremists do their dirty work by invading, warring and wiping Israel off the map. When Russia is done with them, they will attempt to put the Islamists down. Who will win? Well, Russia has might, but Iran has insane religious fervor. They are willing to take everyone out to win. My money is on the Jihadists, but that roll of the dice is anyone’s guess. Let’s pray it never gets that far, but it sure looks like it’s progressing in that direction. I suspect in the end, the Chinese will be there to claim whatever is left, if anything is.

So, why would we stick our nose once again where it does not belong? Power, control and delusion. The Progressives always believe they will come out on top and in control. But they are not the biggest dog in this fight and they will get the crap kicked out of them by the big boys in Russia, Iran and China. And there are no do-overs in this game.

I understand Syria is murdering their own. That is evil and heinous, but nothing we do will change Islamic rule there. Either Iran will win or the Muslim Brotherhood will. Both are horrific and both are very bad for us. Both sides of that coin are our enemies, make no mistake about it. Pushing the so-called Arab Spring there is just enough to really stir the war pot.

We had a tie this week between two must read entries in our non-Council category. One was by Friedrich Hansen in The Brussels Journal entitled A Brief History of Liberty for the OWS Crowd submitted by The Political Commentator, which was exactly what it sounded like, a scholarly attempt to explain the roots of our political liberty.

The other was Sultan Knish‘s Mr. Islam’s Blindfold and Machete submitted by Right Truth.

As is usual in these cases, I had to put on my Watcher’s hat and break the tie. While the Brussels Journal piece was erudite and well written, ultimately Sultan Knish’s visceral imagery won me over.

Here are this week’s full results. Only New Zeal was unable to vote this week, but was not affected by the 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!