Tag: America

Administration Sanctions Remote Control Elimination

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

obamabigbroRemember when we were kids, all the science fiction novelists writing about the future being a “brave new world”?

Well, it’s a new world alright. However, with this Administration in charge of it, the word “‘dangerous” has replaced the word “brave”.

NBC News reports

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”

The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.

“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.

“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.

The memo, made public Monday, provides detail about the administration’s controversial expansion of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens.

Among them were Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed by an American strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Both men were U.S. citizens who had not been charged with a crime.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a talk at Northwestern University Law School in March, endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans provided that the government determines such an individual poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the memo obtained by NBC News refers to a broader definition of imminence and specifically says the government is not required to have “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”

“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wrote.

The attorney general told reporters Tuesday that the administration’s primary concern is to keep Americans safe, and to do it in a way consistent with American values. He said the administration was confident it was following federal and international law.

“We will have to look at this and see what it is we want to do with these memos,” he said. “But you have to understand that we are talking about things that are, that go into how we conduct our offensive operations against a clear and present danger.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that while the government must take the Constitution into account, U.S. citizenship does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted.

The drone strikes, and now the Justice Department memo, are expected to figure prominently Thursday when the Senate takes up the nomination of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser and architect of the drone campaign, to lead the CIA.

This Administration’s surveillance on American citizens has been in the works for quite a while..and, it is probably going to be activated domestically as well.

In an article posted on May 12, 2012, rt.com reported that

A leaked US Air Force document stipulates a drone that happens to capture surveillance images of Americans may store them for a period of 90 days. The paper appears to justify spying on citizens, as long as it is “incidental.”

The document accepts that the Air Force may not record information non-consensually; however it does state “collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent.”

The report, dated April 23 was discovered by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists and has been put online.

Data that is accidentally recorded may be stored for a period of 90 days by the Pentagon while it is analyzed to see if the subjects are legitimate targets for state surveillance. The Pentagon may also disseminate this data among other government organizations if it sees fit.

“Even though information may not be collectible, it may be retained for the length of time necessary to transfer it to another DoD entity or government agency to whose function it pertains,” states the document.

In addition, it justifies the gathering of data on domestic targets in certain circumstances. According to the paper, these include surveillance of natural disasters, environmental studies, system testing and training, and counterintelligence and security-related vulnerability assessments.

The document seems to spell bad news for civil liberties, considering the US government passed a bill in February allocating $63 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

If the bill is signed into law it will effectively allow the FAA to fill US skies with drones, a massive 30,000 predicted to be operational in US airspace by 2020.

Over 30 prominent civil rights groups in the US have rounded on the FAA and demanded that it reconsider the legislation and hold a rule-making session to address privacy and safety threats.

“Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected,” said the American Civil Liberties Union in response to the legislation.

The bill has sparked fears among Americans that their civil liberties may be under threat, considering that the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been extended to carry out attacks on militants.

I remember a movie from the 1980s titled “Real Genius”. A young Val Kimer and a bunch of underage geniuses at a University were working on a super-powered laser that could be shot by a pilot in a space shuttle to assassinate somebody sitting by their pool.

Now, we have unarmed drones, piloted by joystick, like a video game, which can not only be used for 24 hour surveillance on American citizens, but can also be used to eliminate American citizens.

Skynet has become aware.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Newtown: An American Tragedy, Not a Political Opportunity

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics7 Comments

American flag half mastAfter engaging with my bride and some friends in a Quixotic quest to view what turned out to be few and far between Christmas Lights, thanks to Obamanomics, I turned on the television in an attempt to catch the last 30 minutes of Blue Bloods.

What I found myself watching instead, was a CBS Special Report on the horrific massacre of precious innocents in the previously quiet little town of Newtown, Connecticut. What struck me immediately was the foghorn-like obvious nature of CBS’s editorial push for gun control.

From the moment I tuned in, CBS was announcing how imperative Gun Control was, while accusing Speaker of the House John Boehner of ducking the issue. They immediately  followed this observation up with interviews of  precious little ones, who had seen their playmates murdered at school.

Adding to CBS’ editorial narrative was a review of the sensationally horrible Columbine School Massacre, with numerous survivor interviews attached.

Richard Schlesinger wrapped up the CBS Special Report with more interviews of the surviving schoolchildren, trotted in front of the unblinking camera, in a manner reminiscent of P.T. Barnum exhibiting Freaks of Nature to a curious public for sensationalism’s sake.

Also, earlier in the day, hastily-organized professional demonstrators marched back in forth of the White House clamoring for gun control.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

What do we know about the horrific slaughter of these precious children?

Per the CBS affiliate in New York City:

While the families of victims were notified, authorities on Friday night were still in the process of positively identifying those killed.

While officials had been briefing the public on the situation throughout the day, local officials were still looking at various angles as they continued their “massive investigation” in coordination with the FBI and ATF.

While authorities have still not officially identified the gunman who opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School, law enforcement sources have named him as 20-year-old Adam Lanza.

Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, was found dead Friday inside her Newtown home, CBS News reported. After Lanza allegedly shot and killed his mother, he drove her car to the school, where he opened fire on adults and children, 1010 WINS’ Al Jones reported.

State Police Lt. Paul Vance said 18 children and six adults, including the school’s principal Dawn Hochsprung, were pronounced dead at that scene. Two other children later died at the hospital. One other person was injured, Vance said.

“Evil visited this community today and it’s too early to speak of recovery,” Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy said.

Indeed. And, unfortunately, not only are we seeing tragedies like this more often, but, I guarantee you, there will be more on the horizon.

Why? The Liberals will tell you that it’s the guns’ fault and Americans own too many of them.

Well, first off, Americans have owned guns since this nation was born.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This Amendment was written by our forefathers to protect Americans from not only foreign enemies and despots, but, internal ones, as well.

And, that is what makes Liberals nervous.

You see, without that Second Amendment, and the protection that it provides American citizens, an out-of-control president could, through executive orders, take away our personal freedoms.

Not to mention the fact, that “If guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns”.

Ask the people of Norway about that.

On Friday, July 22, 2011, a Norwegian gunman, disguised as a police officer beckoned his victims closer before shooting them one by one, claiming at least 84 lives, in a horrific killing spree on an idyllic island teeming with youths that left that peaceful Nordic nation in mourning.

The island tragedy unfolded hours after a massive explosion ripped through a high-rise building housing the prime minister’s office, killing seven people in a scene some likened to the aftermath of 9/11.

Per The Guardian, there was a reason that Breivik was able to kill so many innocent people:

The massacre on the island of Utøya is certain to lead to a security review, with particular stress on how Anders Behring Breivik obtained his weapons. Norway already has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, but they were apparently easily circumvented by the killer.

A licence is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. Many categories of guns, including automatics and some powerful handguns, are banned from sale altogether.

Hunting and outdoor sports are popular in Norway. But the laws are strict in these areas, too. Shotguns and rifles must be stored in a secure place, typically a specially designed gun safe, as must ammunition. Police have the right to inspect an owner’s home to ensure the law is being followed.

Transporting a weapon to a public place is also covered by legislation. The owner must have a good reason for carrying a weapon, must ensure it is unloaded and concealed from view, but not worn on the body, and must keep the weapon under constant supervision.

Under the Firearm Weapons Act, only “sober and responsible” persons over the age of 18 may obtain a gun licence. For handguns, the age requirement is 21. In 2009, additional legislation was introduced, further tightening Norway’s gun laws.

Perhaps because the laws are already so strict and gun crime is relatively rare, gun control is not generally considered a political issue in Norway, unlike countries such as the US where a citizen’s right to bear arms is guaranteed by the constitution and fiercely defended.

Perhaps, ladies and gentleman, the burden of responsibility in the aftermath of a senseless massacre such as the one yesterday, needs to be singularly placed on the individual who planned and committed the heinous act, instead of the focus being placed upon the instrument he used.

After all, when have you ever witnessed, or even heard of, a gun pulling its own trigger?

Heavenly Father, may you comfort the families and friends of all those who died so senselessly yesterday, even as you welcome those precious little ones into your loving embrace. In Christ’s name I pray…Amen.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Americans to Be Disarmed by the U.N.?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics14 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama may be about to make the United States of America subservient to the United Nations.

The following is taken directly from un.org:

Many areas of world trade are covered by regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. At present, there is no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures and a few global instruments on arms transfers exist, but the absence of a global framework regulating the international trade in all conventional arms has obscured transparency, comparability and accountability.

Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take decisions on arms transfers across international borders. That is why governments are expected to show responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. This means that before approving international transfers (e.g., exports) of weapons, governments should assess the risk that such transfers would exacerbate conflict or be used to commit grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Concerned by the misuse of weaponry around the world, civil society organizations have successfully mobilized governments and parliamentarians to call for the global regulation of the conventional arms trade. Countries have discussed the matter within the UN since 2006 and are set to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.

The Washington Times reports that

The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”

Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets – which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components – or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market – could be said to be part of “international” trade.

Per mrctv.com, a former adviser to President Clinton has weighed in:

Dick Morris, political author and commentator, warns of a threat to the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.

Morris cautions that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “On July 27… are going to sign a treaty in New York City which will obligate the United States to participate in a global regime of gun control.”

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a proposal by the United Nations to address the lack of global standards for the international arms trade. Morris concedes that “the theoretical objective of the ATT is to regulate the arms trade,” but bills this claim as “ridiculous because most of the arms trade is done by the governments and this [treaty] does nothing to regulate government arms trafficking.”

Morris claims “the real purpose of this [treaty] is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world…It really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulation of flows across borders.”

Furthermore, Morris asserts that “if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parody with the second amendment…because the supremacy clause of the constitution says treaties are the law of the land.”

Morris concludes that “for those of us who value the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, this is absolutely pivotal.”

The United States gave their official statement at the third day of the Arms Trade Treaty Conference yesterday, per heritage.org:

…And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.

The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.

Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.

Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.

First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.

In short, the U.S. statement was pure lowest common denominator, which is not surprising: In the context of the ATT, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China in fact agree on very little. The U.S. strategy, thus, continues to be fairly simple: to run interference for the autocracies and to try to secure an ATT that the U.S., Russia, and China can sign on to (which will be an ATT that is very general) in the hope that this will satisfy the broader demand for a treaty.

And that leads to the real conflict in the U.S. position: An ATT that is based on sovereignty cannot at the same time be one that is based on “common international standards” if those standards are in practice defined by the ever-evolving sentiments of the “international community” and tightened regularly by the review conferences that will be found necessary by the unsatisfied majority at this conference.

The problem is…we have a President of the United States of America who believes more in the rights of the “international community” than he does in the sovereignty of his own country.

American Leadership in a Dangerous World

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Mitt Romney has issued a warning, concerning keeping our country safe in a dangerous world.

Reuters.com reports:

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney chose Veterans Day to proclaim to the American people his conviction that the world is a dangerous place, and the United States must remain its most formidable military power.

“The world is not safe,” Romney told veterans on Memorial Day. He was joined by Senator John McCain, in a speech to honor the veterans of America’s wars.

The United States now has two paths forward, Romney said. He called one “the pathway to Europe,” suggesting Europe had acquiesced to geopolitical threats. “To shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs.”

The other path, Romney said, is “to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world.”

Romney, expected to face off against President Barack Obama in November, joined the 2008 Republican presidential nominee in thanking the nation’s veterans.

Romney, who has focused his campaign on the struggling U.S. economy, changed his focus on Monday in his warning about the dangers of the world outside America’s borders, indirectly criticizing Obama’s foreign policies.

“I wish I could tell you that the world is a safe place. It’s not,” Romney said.

Romney ticked off Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia, among other countries, as threats as he transformed his message from economic warnings of the United States becoming like Europe to a military warning that America was becoming weaker.

McCain introduced Romney to the 5,000 people gathered as a “man who I believe is fully qualified to be commander-in-chief.”

“He believes in American exceptionalism,” McCain said. “He believes the 21st Century will also be an American century.”

Quite different from what the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania says about our country, don’t you think?

Well, not according to “The Lightbringer”.

Back on April 12th, foxnews.com reported:

President Obama defended his record on “American exceptionalism” on Monday, saying that his entire career has been a testimony to that core belief.

“It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism,” Obama said at a press conference alongside Mexican president Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Obama’s comments come days after GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney said Obama “doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do.”

Romney’s absolutely correct.

Thoughout his reign as the Leader of the Far Left, masquerading as a Moderate President of the United States, Obama has shown himself to be out of touch with average American thought.

Let’s review a few examples:

He started out his presidency by giving a speech at the University of Cairo, on June 4th, 2009,  an attempt to reach out to the Muslim World, the same people who danced in the streets when 3,000 Americans were massacred on September 1st, 2001.  He said:

…There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

This was only the beginning of a worldwide apology tour, where he made a very public show of apologizing for our country’s transgressions to every two-bit, tinhorn despot around the globe.

Beginning with the passage of Obamacare, by him and his Congressional minions, holding clandestine meetings, both on Christmas, and in the dark of night, Obama has shown the propensity to do whatever he wants to, in order to further his personal agenda, regardless of the wishes of the people whom he is supposed to be serving.

An example of American Exceptionalis?  Hardly.

More like “The Peter Principal”.