NC #14 tied with GA
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama
Via Cousin John
On Sunday November 4, late in the day, an odd video appeared (or rather was buried) on CBS’s website, entitled “Obama Suspects Libya Attack Targeted Americans.”
It was odd in that for several weeks, the Obama administration had finally dropped the idiotic narrative that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was caused by a “mob turned violent” over an obscure anti-Muslim video that no one had seen.
A closer look at the video shows that it was in fact taped on September 12, a few hours after Obama made vague remarks about the attack in the Rose Garden. That it was part of a 60 Minutes interview that CBS had clearly suppressed.
Why was the video suppressed?
It didn’t fit the narrative. Even though we later found out that Obama watched the attack on the Benghazi consulate in real time. Even though we later found out Obama had received an email that went directly to the White House Situation Room blaming the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia, Obama in this suppressed video refused to call it terrorism. That Obama, in the suppressed video, oddly at the same time, thought the “mob turned violent over a anti-Muslim video” was equally ridiculous.
It was obvious what Obama was trying to do in the interview. He wasn’t sure what lie he was going to tell the American people about the attack and wanted to be as vague as possible.
But it wasn’t vague enough. It didn’t fit the narrative.
So it had to be suppressed.
What we now know is that Barack Hussein Obama was shipping weapons from Libya to Syria—arming the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Syrian rebels—yes, our enemies—with Ambassador Chris Stevens as the point man—and needed a cover story to keep it out of the public’s eyes.
Arming of our enemies?
That’s treason in my book.
And if I remember correctly, that’s grounds for impeachment.
VERBATIM
It was odd in that for several weeks, the Obama administration had finally dropped the idiotic narrative that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was caused by a “mob turned violent” over an obscure anti-Muslim video that no one had seen.
A closer look at the video shows that it was in fact taped on September 12, a few hours after Obama made vague remarks about the attack in the Rose Garden. That it was part of a 60 Minutes interview that CBS had clearly suppressed.
Why was the video suppressed?
It didn’t fit the narrative. Even though we later found out that Obama watched the attack on the Benghazi consulate in real time. Even though we later found out Obama had received an email that went directly to the White House Situation Room blaming the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia, Obama in this suppressed video refused to call it terrorism. That Obama, in the suppressed video, oddly at the same time, thought the “mob turned violent over a anti-Muslim video” was equally ridiculous.
It was obvious what Obama was trying to do in the interview. He wasn’t sure what lie he was going to tell the American people about the attack and wanted to be as vague as possible.
But it wasn’t vague enough. It didn’t fit the narrative.
So it had to be suppressed.
What we now know is that Barack Hussein Obama was shipping weapons from Libya to Syria—arming the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Syrian rebels—yes, our enemies—with Ambassador Chris Stevens as the point man—and needed a cover story to keep it out of the public’s eyes.
Arming of our enemies?
That’s treason in my book.
And if I remember correctly, that’s grounds for impeachment.
British Seek to Abolish Motherhood
Via The Arctic Patriot
EMBOLDENED supposedly by Romney’s loss among women, liberal Democrats and Tories are scrambling for new ways to make motherhood obsolete, The Daily Mail reports. It all boils down to more of the same old socialist plans for subsidized childcare, parental leave and affirmative action, which all boil down to making motherhood more unappealing.
Despite an unwed motherhood rate of over 50 percent and disastrously low fertility among natives, the British clamor to demonize and collectivize motherhood even more. Instead of devoting resources to making it possible for women to be mothers, the British steadfastly marginalize motherhood.
The average age of first-time mothers in Britain is now 30, the most advanced age of first mothers in the developed world and possibly all of history. Animals don’t reproduce much when they are raised in zoos; human beings don’t reproduce much when they live in the closed-off pens of social engineers. Women who lived in peasant villages with one water pump and no indoor plumbing, no refrigerators, no gas stoves, no antibiotics, no hospitals, no day care centers routinely managed to raise hordes of healthy children while the native British eke out so few children they are not replacing themselves.
They should get it over with and make it illegal to have children. Then women would be totally equal to men.
VERBATIM
EMBOLDENED supposedly by Romney’s loss among women, liberal Democrats and Tories are scrambling for new ways to make motherhood obsolete, The Daily Mail reports. It all boils down to more of the same old socialist plans for subsidized childcare, parental leave and affirmative action, which all boil down to making motherhood more unappealing.
Despite an unwed motherhood rate of over 50 percent and disastrously low fertility among natives, the British clamor to demonize and collectivize motherhood even more. Instead of devoting resources to making it possible for women to be mothers, the British steadfastly marginalize motherhood.
The average age of first-time mothers in Britain is now 30, the most advanced age of first mothers in the developed world and possibly all of history. Animals don’t reproduce much when they are raised in zoos; human beings don’t reproduce much when they live in the closed-off pens of social engineers. Women who lived in peasant villages with one water pump and no indoor plumbing, no refrigerators, no gas stoves, no antibiotics, no hospitals, no day care centers routinely managed to raise hordes of healthy children while the native British eke out so few children they are not replacing themselves.
They should get it over with and make it illegal to have children. Then women would be totally equal to men.
3 Myths About Secession
Via Hype And Fail
I have no illusions about this latest secession petition phenomenon. Nothing will directly come of this, and the people who are behind it are mostly people who would be singing "God Bless America" at the tops of their lungs had Mitt Romney been elected. On the other hand, it sure has a lot of people talking about secession, which shows that the idea of it remains an important part of the American political consciousness.
But, in response, most of the comments coming from political hacks display a deep, deep ignorance of the history of secession and the Constitutional realities behind it.
In response, I thought I'd list some retorts to the basic myths which most of the anti-secession screeds are intent on perpetuating.
1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.
2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.
3. Secession
is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the
confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and
seceded from their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington. If you're opposed to the secession of 1776,
then that's fine, you might be consistent on this issue, but if
you're one of these right-wing pundits who thinks the Declaration
of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and then says
that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that document
you profess to love.
The Declaration makes a simple argument:
VERBATIM
I have no illusions about this latest secession petition phenomenon. Nothing will directly come of this, and the people who are behind it are mostly people who would be singing "God Bless America" at the tops of their lungs had Mitt Romney been elected. On the other hand, it sure has a lot of people talking about secession, which shows that the idea of it remains an important part of the American political consciousness.
But, in response, most of the comments coming from political hacks display a deep, deep ignorance of the history of secession and the Constitutional realities behind it.
In response, I thought I'd list some retorts to the basic myths which most of the anti-secession screeds are intent on perpetuating.
1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.
2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.
|
|
The Declaration makes a simple argument:
-
Humans have rights from the Creator.
-
Governments exist to secure those rights (a debatable assertion but we'll roll with it).
-
When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and start our own government.
That's pretty
much all it says. If you thought that was true in 1776, when tax
rates were 1% and there was no such thing as a the EPA or the
FBI or the IRS, why is it not true now? Because we're so much
more free now? And, no, the Declaration did not say that the government
is free to violate rights as long as people get to vote on it.
The Declaration establishes that there's no such thing as treason, and a free government requires the assumption of just secession. Lysander Spooner explains (in No Treason #1):
Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.
The Declaration establishes that there's no such thing as treason, and a free government requires the assumption of just secession. Lysander Spooner explains (in No Treason #1):
Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.
November
15, 2012
Ryan
McMaken [send him mail]
teaches political science in Colorado.
Secession: Radical reaction or right of the states?
Via Rebellion
An online petition calling for the secession of North Carolina from the United States has enough signatures to prompt an official response from the White House.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chair of North Carolina League of the South, said the petitions may not achieve what they call for, but they are a start, nonetheless.
Every state voluntarily signed the
constitution, so they can voluntarily leave the union as well, according
to Thuersam. He said it's a constitutional principal that many do no
understand, and the recent petitions on pushing the discussion into the
open.
"As unscientific as they may be, they show a great dislike for the federal government and it's interference and the intrusion it's making into the states," said Thuersam.
If a state were to secede, there would be a plan, according to Thuersam. He predicts several states banding together to form their own union. Thuersam said secession should not be considered 'unamerican', because it comes down to a misunderstanding of the constitution.
Michael Haas, Pre-Law Advisor at UNC-Wilmington, said Wednesday that the view of secession in America changed after the Civil War. Besides the Supreme Court precedent in 1869, Haas said people spoke about the United States differently before the war by considering it a plural.
"Before they said 'the United States are', and after it was 'the United States is, making it the singular entity it is today," said Haas.
The federal relief money given to states after natural disasters is a sticking point for Haas.
"When you talk of maybe $30 billion in damages from this Hurricane Sandy, that's something you have to keep in mind," he said.
To that, Thuersam said the states survived well enough before agencies like FEMA.
"We helped each other out," said Thuersam. "It's not done through the government."
A government that Thuersam considers out of touch with the more than 300 million people it represents. He suggests states and the people living in them would benefit from smaller governments as opposed to any administration in Washington, D.C.
"The scale is so out of touch," he said.
Copyright 2012 WECT. All rights reserved.
Bernhard spoke at our Lee-Jackson Day Dinner last January.
Bernhard, Dixie and Cousin John
WECT
VERBATIM
VERBATIM
An online petition calling for the secession of North Carolina from the United States has enough signatures to prompt an official response from the White House.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chair of North Carolina League of the South, said the petitions may not achieve what they call for, but they are a start, nonetheless.
"To go to the federal government and say 'please, can we secede?' is really not the proper way to do it," he said.
"As unscientific as they may be, they show a great dislike for the federal government and it's interference and the intrusion it's making into the states," said Thuersam.
If a state were to secede, there would be a plan, according to Thuersam. He predicts several states banding together to form their own union. Thuersam said secession should not be considered 'unamerican', because it comes down to a misunderstanding of the constitution.
Michael Haas, Pre-Law Advisor at UNC-Wilmington, said Wednesday that the view of secession in America changed after the Civil War. Besides the Supreme Court precedent in 1869, Haas said people spoke about the United States differently before the war by considering it a plural.
"Before they said 'the United States are', and after it was 'the United States is, making it the singular entity it is today," said Haas.
The federal relief money given to states after natural disasters is a sticking point for Haas.
"When you talk of maybe $30 billion in damages from this Hurricane Sandy, that's something you have to keep in mind," he said.
To that, Thuersam said the states survived well enough before agencies like FEMA.
"We helped each other out," said Thuersam. "It's not done through the government."
A government that Thuersam considers out of touch with the more than 300 million people it represents. He suggests states and the people living in them would benefit from smaller governments as opposed to any administration in Washington, D.C.
"The scale is so out of touch," he said.
Copyright 2012 WECT. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)