New post#2

Right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the States against a tyrannical central government, should one rise at the federal level

Gun Control Issue Resolved in 1791


Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator.  So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.



In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights.  But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition.  Bullets are hard to come by, of late.  Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire.  In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.

It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.

There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms.  In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted.  In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.  But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.



The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.”  A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.

We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere.  The word “regulated,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.

The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.

The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them.  A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.

But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative?  What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?

In Concord was our largest munitions depot.  Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord.  So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.

The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves.  The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.

The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do.  The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one.  The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could.  The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.

Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.

Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.

We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here.  All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.

This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however.  Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people.  They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue.  But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?  They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.

My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.”  Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.

The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights.  With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.

In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void (if one believes that the courts have that kind of overpowering rule over the legislative power in the States, and can dictate to the States what they can and can’t do).  The courts applying the 2nd Amendment to the States would mean the Second Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms. However, studying the language of the Second Amendment carefully, it says that all persons are allowed to possess a firearm.  The final words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.  If that is the case, and if the 2nd Amendment also applies to the States, then technically it would also make all State gun laws unconstitutional.

The reason that the Second Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies only to the federal government, except where specifically noted otherwise.  Besides, even if on the surface it seems to be for a good cause, do you really want the federal government forcing the States to do something?  Do we really want the federal government controlling the States in such a manner?  When it comes to the McDonald v. Chicago case, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or State what they have to do.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? The case regarding Chicago’s handgun ban created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and in that I recognize a great danger to state sovereignty, and ultimately, to our Gun Rights.

The final argument against gun control is a need for an armed militia.  Leftists do not accept the need of an unorganized civilian militia.  In fact, the most common argument I hear regarding gun rights is that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.  According to these people, the citizen militia is no longer necessary, and all functions a militia would facilitate are now covered by the military, and more specifically, when it comes to local protection, the National Guard.

The National Guard is indeed much like the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but that does not mean an unorganized militia does not exist, nor is necessary.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.


United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.  I also think the requirements will go out the window if the unorganized militia ever needs to be called into action.  The requirement at that time will be, “If you can aim and fire, you are a part of our militia.”

So, according to the U.S. Code, the unorganized militia exists.

But why, I am often asked, is it so important to have a right to keep and bear arms in this civilized society?

You have a right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment says, because it is “necessary to the security of a free State.”  Here, the word “State” does not mean “civil government” as assumed, but instead refers to the individual States.  So, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of your State, be it Virginia, Maryland, New York, California, or wherever.  And the word “necessary” is a pretty definitive term.  So our gun rights are “necessary” to the security of a free State.  From whom?  Invaders?  Don’t we have the organized military forces for protecting our States from foreign invaders?

If we don’t need to be armed to protect our states from foreign invasion, then why was it so important to the Founding Fathers to ensure that Americans remained armed?

Who does that leave as a potential enemy that the founders felt it “necessary” to arm the citizens to protect their States?

I believe the language is as such to remind us that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the States against a tyrannical central government, should one rise at the federal level.

I was once asked, “Does that mean you would fire upon government employees?”

I replied, “If necessary.”

==========================================================================























Choice is our ultimate weapon, and the purveyors of big government know it, and that is why they are working to eliminate your choice


Without Choice, the Disease Wins


The ability to choose is a basic part of being a free willed individual.  Choice is liberty.  To not be able to choose is bondage.  But, with choice comes responsibility.  We have many choices in life, but many come with consequences that are not favorable to us, or those around us, be it in the immediate sense, or down the road.



Therefore, our choices must be accompanied by reason.  We must be responsible in our choices, both for our own welfare, and the welfare of those around us.

Human Nature tends to point inward.  We are naturally a selfish being, and that is okay, as long as we use responsibility regarding that trait.  We can choose to be bossy, or be leaders.  We can choose to be greedy, or profitable.  We can choose to be responsible individuals, or literally lead ourselves into bondage.

Responsible choices can be hard to come by, it seems.  But sometimes the choice is not the choice itself, but the motivation behind the choice.

Matthew 7:13-14 says: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”



We don’t know the future, and since our lives are a direct result of the choices we make, sometimes it can be difficult to determine if a particular choice is the best choice.  Imagine the early colonists to the New World making the choice to make the perilous journey to a place where there is no civilization, and no going back.  Their choices had to be carefully measured, for though there were many reasons to remain in the comfort, or in some cases the discomfort, of their home country, the promise of the freedom to choose anything and everything in their lives was stronger.  In the New World the journey would be difficult, and life would be near impossible, but the potential pursuit of opportunities were great.  The ability to be a property owner, and choose what crops to grow, and how one would live their lives (including the pursuit of religious liberty) was a choice they felt they had to make - so they took the risk.

For most, the result of their choice was death.  Of the first 500 colonists over time to make their way to Jamestown, only 60 survived.  But, their individual choice paved the way, making it easier for those that followed them - and many understood this may be the result of their choices.  For some, the choice was not for themselves, but for their posterity.

The English Colonies grew, and prospered once a cash crop, tobacco, was discovered.  The choices of those early settlers were beneficial to those that followed.  But new choices arose.  New decisions were wrestled with.  Bad and good.  The choice of slavery joined the choice of freedom - a paradoxical atmosphere in a place that would ultimately come to be the symbol of liberty.  And as all of the turmoil, slavery, and war with the tyranny of The Crown gripped the shores of the land on the western edge of the Atlantic, the choice of independence gripped America.  The choice of independence was also a difficult one to make, but in the end, it was choice that led the United States to gain independence, and grow into a prosperous nation that even reversed one of its choices, abandoning slavery and striking it from the laws of the nation.

The death of slavery, however, led to the potential for a new slavery. . . progressivism.

The desire for Americans to continue to benefit from the freedom of individual choice was one of the inspirations of the Declaration of Independence
The desire for Americans to continue to benefit from the freedom of individual choice was one of the inspirations of the Declaration of Independence.  The text of that declaration declares choice to be a right, and one that is granted by the Creator.  The pursuit of happiness cannot be pursued without the availability of choice.  Personal choice is the engine behind innovation, and without innovation a society remains static, unable to grow and move forward.

Government does not innovate, it simply controls.  Individuals innovate.  Individualism, fueled by choices we believe to be best for our own welfare fuels the free market, and makes nations prosper.  Individual choice is what has made America great.

But, with freedom comes responsibility.  As the old saying goes, “Just because you can, does not mean you should.”

Freedom can only thrive if the populace makes responsible choices.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Adams was not saying that everyone necessarily has to be Christian, or church goers, though it doesn’t hurt, to necessarily be able to live in harmony with the society capable of living hand in hand with the principles put forth by the Constitution.  I have friends that are not “religious,” but definitely fit into the mold of being moral and religious in the way Adams meant it.  What he meant, and what we have been as a nation until progressivism has worked to dismantle it, is a nation that follows the standards that accompany a system based on Christian-Judeo values.  A virtuous society recognizes the importance of choice, that it is a God-given right, and the importance of making moral choices - choices consistent with the virtuous nature of the said society.

To make choices contrary to what Adams considered to be moral and religious would be to doom our culture to collapse, and ultimate death.

Proverbs 14:12 says: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

The founders believed that Divine Providence had a hand in the founding of this nation, and if our choices remained consistent with the biblical standards of the Creator, the nation would prosper, and stand the test of time.  But, that path must be a choice.  The people must choose to follow the path to remain moral and religious, and must choose the path to continue to keep the Constitution the law of the land.  That is, in addition to reasons of compromise to ensure the Constitution received enough ratification votes, among the motivations behind the federal government not straight out outlawing slavery at the beginning.  If the nation was to move forward, shedding the sin of slavery, it must be a choice.

State Sovereignty must be behind the choice, for the States were to be as us - individual and autonomous.

Proverbs 19:21: “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”

Be it disobedience to God, disobedience to basic morality, or disobedience to common sense, the fact is we have spent a little over the last one hundred years doing what we can to move away from the principles of the Constitution, away from moral standards, and ultimately away from choice.  For the claim of the common good we are losing our choice to bondage under the rule of a tyrannical government.

From the slaughter of the innocent unborn, to defying natural sexuality for perversion, our choices are being engineered to deny choice
From the slaughter of the innocent unborn, to defying natural sexuality for perversion, our choices are being engineered to deny choice.  We have literally decided to begin calling wrong “right,” and right “wrong.”  Even in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict, the progressive liberal left Marxists are calling for us to abandon our right to defend ourselves if attacked, telling us that we have a duty to retreat instead.  But without the choice of defending ourselves, that leaves us with no choice at all.

Once, during a radio program I was hosting, during a conversation about the dangers of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, a listener from Canada called in to tell me how wonderful their government run health care was.  He then added that where he lived in Alberta, the auto insurance was also government run.  I asked, “What if it wasn’t good. What if the service was bad, you car was not fixed, and you hated it.”

“But it is wonderful,” he responded.

“What if it wasn’t.  Do you really believe the government will always maintain it as wonderful?  Wouldn’t you want a choice to go to as an alternative, just in case?”

I had broken his argument, because deep down, our free will demands that we always have a choice.

We should always have a choice.  And choice often wins out.

Michelle Obama, for example, tried to impose her nutritional standards on schools, but the children made a choice.  They did not like the food available, and made the choice not to eat it.  They complained about being hungry, and it confused the liberal left.

In Detroit a local income tax was imposed, and the wealthy left the city, leaving the city in big trouble financially.  The liberal left was confused.  They did not expect the people to make the choice to abandon the city.

Choice is our ultimate weapon, and the purveyors of big government know it, and that is why they are working to eliminate your choice.  They want you to be unable to defend yourself, unable to speak out against things you are morally opposed to, and unable to make your own decisions.  Without choice, government enslaves us.  With choice, we defeat tyranny, and liberty reigns.

Your choice.


====================================================================================================








Growing up we all had hero;s one of mine was Stone wall Jackson so in dedication to him I send out this post


Stonewall is a hero worthy of our praise. We proudly remember him today, on the anniversary of his birth

Celebrating Gen. T. J. “Stonewall” Jackson’s Birthday


He was Gen. Robert E. Lee’s strong right arm.  He was unarguably one of the best battle field commanders of any army, anywhere, ever.  His tactics are still taught in military institutes around the world to this day.

Jackson was a brilliant military strategist.  But he was much more.  He was the lynch pin upon which southern victory in the War for Southern Independence depended.

Thomas J. Jackson¹ was born in Clarksburg, Virginia (Later to become West Virginia)  WV on January 21st, 1824. At the tender age of two years he was at his sister’s bedside when she died of typhoid fever.  A few days later, his father died, also.  That left Thomas’ mother, Julia, with three small children to support through teaching school and sewing, so she remarried one Blake Woodson.  Then, she died in 1830 during the birth of Thomas’ half brother.

Thomas then moved in with his uncle Cummins Jackson and worked on the farm.

Jackson’s education was basic, rudimentary, even.  In fact, Thomas taught himself to read.  Later he became a school teacher.

Thomas was appointed to West Point in 1842 and as a result of his lack of formal education, he had to begin at the very bottom of the class.  When he graduated, in 1846, he had worked his way up to 17th in a class of 59 students. By the way, Thomas’ class at West Point supplied 24 generals—for both sides—in the War Between the States.

He served in the Mexican War as a 2nd lieutenant but received brevet promotions to 1st lieutenant and then to major for his bravery.

When the Mexican War was concluded Jackson accept a teaching position at VMI (Virginia Military Institute).  He was a professor teaching Natural and Experimental Philosophy, and he was also an artillery instructor. He was a tough, no nonsense, instructor and his students did not like him very much.

When the WBTS began, Jackson was given a colonelcy in the Virginia Militia.  A month later Jackson was promoted to brigadier general and given command of a brigade consisting of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 27th and 33rd Virginia Infantry regiments.

Jackson was utterly fearless under fire.  In the early fighting at Manassas, federal troops were making advances and appeared to about to win the day. Jackson refused to budge his troops and eventually the tide of battle turned and the Confederates won a decisive victory.

Jackson’s cool demeanor under fire at Manassas caused Brigadier General Barnard Bee to remark:  “There stands Jackson like a stone wall.”  The name stuck and Thomas Jackson became “Stonewall” Jackson and his brigade the “Stonewall” Brigade.

” ...  Jackson’s operations became strategically critical to the entire eastern theater of the war.

Stonewall would march south, to McDowell, and defeat troops under US Brigadier General Robert Schenck.  From there, he would move north and defeat Banks’s army at Front Royal, and Winchester.  He would push Banks clear out of the Shenandoah Valley.  Jackson would turn south, and defeat US Major General John C. Fremont, at Cross Keys, and then turn on US Brigadier General James Shields at Port Republic.  Accolades would abound for Jackson after his brilliant Shenandoah Campaign.  With the valley secure, Jackson was ordered east, by R.E. Lee to reinforce the Army of Northern Virginia, now under his command.  He would arrive in time to participate in the Seven Days battles, pushing McClellan from the peninsula.

Jackson would continue to command brilliantly, with an overwhelming victory at Second Manassas, a tactical, well fought draw at Antietam and another sound victory in December 1862, at Fredericksburg.  For his efforts, Jackson would be promoted lieutenant general, along with James Longstreet, in October 1862

.

May 2nd, 1863 was to be a fateful day for “Stonewall” Jackson and for the South.  After successfully routing federal troops under Gen. Joe Hooker near Chancellorsville,

” ... after dark on May 2, Stonewall, along with A.P. Hill and staff, were reconnoitering the enemy lines – making plans to finish Hooker off, on May 3.  When returning, his contingent would be fired on by his own troops.  Jackson was seriously injured in the shoulder.  He passed command to A.P. Hill, who due to his injury was unable to command, passed it to J.E.B. Stuart.  That night, Jackson’s personal physician, Dr. Hunter McGuire would amputate Jackson’s left arm.  Upon hearing of Jackson’s wounding, Lee was heard to say, “he has lost his left arm; but I lost my right arm.”

Jackson was taken to Fairfield Plantation near Guinea Station, Jackson appeared to rally, but then contracted pneumonia.  When Jackson’s wife told him that Sunday that he was dying, Jackson said: “It is the Lord’s Day; my wish is fulfilled.  I have always desired to die on Sunday.”

Dr. Hunter McGuire, the attending physician, recorded Jackson;s last words:  “Order A.P. Hill to prepare for action!  Pass the infantry to the front rapidly!  Tell major Hawks….”  Then Jackson stopped.  Finally, with a faint smile on his face he said, “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.”  At that point, Jackson stopped breathing.  —SOURCE:  http://thismightyscourge.com/2009/01/21/thomas-j-stonewall-jackson/

It was a devastating blow to the south.  Many believe the WBTS would have had a different ending had “Stonewall” Jackson lived.  There has been much speculation that Had Jackson been there to advise General Lee at Gettysburg, that awful battle would likely never have happened.  Had it happened,  it is fairly certain that Pickett’s Charge would not have occurred.

Jackson was a devout Christian who believed in predestination.  Some say he saw himself as an instrument of God’s will, an Old Testament–style commander of armies in the service of his Lord.

“Like many Southerners, Jackson struggled with his feelings about the institution of slavery, but it obviously was God’s will that it exist—a belief widely held in the South. In 1855, he began teaching Sunday school classes to slaves in Lexington, a violation of Virginia’s segregation laws. Slaves came to know him through these classes and sometimes begged him to buy them so they wouldn’t be sold into the Deep South where they might be worked literally to death. In 1906, long after Jackson’s death, Reverend L. L. Downing, whose parents had been among the slaves in Jackson’s Sunday school, raised money to have a memorial window dedicated to him in the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church of Roanoke, Virginia—likely making “Stonewall” the only Confederate general to have a memorial in an African American church.”

The only man held in higher esteem than Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson in the South is General Robert E. Lee.  He was tough.  He demanded nothing less than 100% effort by his men and he got it—every time.

Stonewall is a hero worthy of our praise. We proudly remember him today, on the anniversary of his birth.

Sources:
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson – CSA Lieutenant General : http://thismightyscourge.com/2009/01/21/thomas-j-stonewall-jackson/

Stonewall Jackson : http://www.historynet.com/stonewall-jackson














Spy agency monitored Barack Obama's telephone conversations--and those of his wife--in 2004

What does the NSA Know about Obama?


National Security Agency (NSA) veterans Bill Binney, Russ Tice and Kirk Wiebe spoke at a Friday news conference at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C., with Tice declaring that the spy agency monitored Barack Obama’s telephone conversations—and those of his wife—in 2004, apparently as a result of Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate and emergence as a major figure in the Democratic Party. This should have been big news. However, the claim was ignored or dismissed by most of the major media.



A major exception was NBC News, which posted a clip from the press conference and an item noting that “Former NSA analyst Russ Tice says that, during his tenure, the NSA had a program that spied on phone and email messages of Congress, the Supreme Court, reporters, military and an up-and-coming politician named Barack Obama.” These are sensational charges.http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/54101930#54101930

Jeff Mason of Reuters interviewed Tice about Obama’s proposed “reforms” of the agency, but didn’t include any comments on the agency’s alleged surveillance of Obama.http://uk.reuters.com/article/video/idUKBREA0G0JI20140118?videoId=276474626

Why would the NSA watch Obama? Could it have something to do with his communist and foreign connections?

Tice, who says he supported Obama for president even though he had been a conservative Republican, told Russia Today (RT) television that “...a high-level person at NSA told me this was being directed from the vice president’s office. That would be Vice-President Dick Cheney. I don’t know that for sure, but that’s what I was told from a very senior person at NSA.” Tice also told the Moscow-funded propaganda channel that Obama may somehow be “controlled” as President as a result of its surveillance of him.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk



Tice cannot be dismissed completely as a nut by the Left, since he was one of the sources used in The New York Times’ reporting in December 2005 on domestic surveillance activity. The media have treated him as credible in the past. His affiliations reportedly include his roles as a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force, Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Jesselyn Radack, an associate of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, has defended Tice as a “whistleblower,” and Tice is featured on the site of the National Whistleblowers Center.http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060127_radack.html

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=921

Tice said at the January 17 National Press Club news conference that he had “in my hand,” during his work for the NSA, the telephone numbers for Barack Obama and his wife, but that the documents were destroyed. “I had numerous phone numbers. I assume his wife’s number was there as well,” he said. “I don’t know what they did with it. I know that they were recording his phone conversations, and then they were storing the information.”

I asked him about the possible grounds for NSA surveillance of Obama, such as his association in Hawaii with Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, who was on the FBI’s security index.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N42K2k49X2c&list=UUukW9fbX4m5MpOmQ2M5isVg&feature=c4-overview
 Tice seemed unfamiliar with Davis. I also asked about Obama’s association with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who helped launch Obama’s political career in Chicago. That meeting was set up by Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer , who had traveled to the Soviet Union and came back praising Soviet-style communism.http://leninandsharia.com/docs/Loudon-Alice-Palmer.pdf

Tice ridiculed the idea that there were any legitimate grounds on which to monitor or investigate Obama. At the same time, he said the agency may have been seeking something they could “use against him in the future.” He wasn’t clear as to whether or not he meant they were seeking something specific. Is there something Obama is hiding?

If the interest was communism, Tice said, then why were so many other people, including admirals, members of congress, and Supreme Court justices, under surveillance? Of course, we have to take his word that all of these people were under surveillance, because he said the documentation for all of this was destroyed when he worked for the NSA.

There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room

The answer may lie in Obama’s NSA reform speech ,http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/remarks-president-review-signals-intelligence

 in which the President admitted that foreign intelligence agencies may be trying to monitor his conversations. He said, “There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries—including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures—are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.”

So is it possible that the NSA is conducting some monitoring for the purpose of determining which foreign intelligence agencies have themselves conducted surveillance of U.S. citizens, in order to compromise or recruit them? That would make complete sense.

Tice, an analyst, may not have been in a high enough position to know or understand this. His speculation about then-Vice President Cheney ordering the surveillance is just that—speculation. And it may stem from his announced preference for Obama as president. But the guidelines under which the NSA operates, stipulate that investigating an American political figure for connections to foreign terrorists and regimes is permitted and justified. Similarly, the NSA would be derelict if it did not attempt to follow what foreign regimes and movements are trying to do here as well.

While Frank Marshall Davis was under surveillance for 19 years, he may have engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union. Obama covered up Davis’s real identity when he ran for president. Although Obama publicly claimed that he regarded Ayers and Dohrn as just neighbors and respected academics, declassified intelligence in the Weather Underground case shows that Ayers, Dohrn and their comrades had connections to the Soviet KGB, the Cuban intelligence service and the DGI, in addition to their terrorist ties.http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Declassified_docs.pdf

We addressed the matter of domestic surveillance in a column on Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), asking the same kinds of questions about NSA activities. Sanders seemed shocked that anything like this was being done. The fact is that Sanders’ extensive affiliations with Soviet front groups were more than enough to justify NSA surveillance of this senator. Other senators may have been monitored because of a massive communist spy effort on Capitol Hill.http://www.aim.org/aim-column/should-the-nsa-be-watching-senator-sanders/

NSA’s Venona project deciphered Soviet communications with agents in the U.S

Tice ridicules the idea of the NSA monitoring “commies” on Capitol Hill. But that should be one of the legitimate functions of the NSA. After all, the NSA’s Venona project deciphered Soviet communications with agents in the U.S., including the federal government. This effort disclosed traitors and spies. However, only Obama could order the declassification of any documents in the possession of the U.S. intelligence community about his own foreign and communist connections.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/

We are not holding our breath.

We also don’t expect the Institute for Public Accuracy, which sponsored the news conference, to do a follow-up on this mystery. The group is funded :http://www.accuracy.org/about-us/

 by left-wing foundations associated with such figures as Barbra Streisand. She endorsed Obama for president in 2012,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppoqdjhYoms calling him a “good man” and praising ObamaCare.



















http://freepatriot.org/2013/05/24/sources-say-obama-was-incapacitated-on-the-night-of-benghazi-attacks/


Syria, Russia, Prince of the Mujahideen and the Sochi Games
Understanding the Olympic terror threat

Author
By Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
9

What and who is behind the current terror threat at the Olympic games in Sochi? I was asked this question last night in an interview with George Noory on Coast to Coast AM for their news segment.



After I explained the reasons and origins, I received an off-air telephone call from a nationally syndicated talk show host who heard my answer. “I never expected that explanation, but I must admit that it makes perfect sense,” was his response.

The key to understanding the terrorist threats for the Olympic games is to understand the bigger picture. Even on a good day and under the best of conditions, Middle East politics is not the easiest subject to comprehend. I often beg my intelligence sources to slow down when tossing around names of groups and alliances as it is difficult to keep up with the key players and groups. When researching this issue, I notice that many pundits, commentators and bloggers tend to over-simplify the politics of Middle East terror, saying or writing that homicide bombers are simply savages that have fallen victim to a convoluted belief system. I understand why, as that is the simplest method of categorizing this agenda and the threats. It’s often true in many cases as well. In the real world and especially in the case of the Olympic terror threat, however, it is far from the most accurate.



The Winter Olympics in Sochi will begin on February 7, 2014, and last for 17 days. Many news organizations have said that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s reputation is on the line as the upcoming games will be the most expensive in the history of the Olympics—$50 billion and rising, compared to the 2008 winter games in Beijing that cost an estimated $40 billion. Putin’s detractors have suggested that billions are “missing” and cannot be accounted for, which is something to keep in mind as you consider the “back story.” Here is what you are not being told by an obedient American press and their paid pundits.

Syria, Russia, Prince of the Mujahideen and the Sochi Games

It was last August when Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan visited Putin in Moscow in his capacity as the “Prince of the Mujahideen” in Syria, including those who hail from Chechnya, Dagestan, and the Caucasus in Russia’s backyard, according to FARS News Agency.http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920913001403
 You might recall Bandar bin Sultan as the infamous “Bandar Bush” in earlier times, but that’s another column.

Last August, Bandar was in Moscow to specifically discuss the Syrian issue. At that time, Bandar tried to bribe Putin into changing his policy on Syria by promising him “a safe and secure winter Olympics in Sochi” if he would stop the material support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He offered Russia other incentives in exchange for withdrawing his support for Assad, “including a major arms deal and a pledge not to challenge Russian gas sales if Moscow scales back support for the Syrian government,” as noted by the FARS News Agency.

The future of Syria, in the eyes of Putin, is not negotiable. I have written many times that Syria is Putin’s red line in the sand and that Syria, not Iran, will be the tripwire for World War III. Yet, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Israel and others are hell-bent on toppling Assad by all available means, which leads back to the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. It’s interesting how we can see a pattern emerging, and how the Benghazi attacks suddenly make sense when the truth is exposed.

The Saudis fund and support the various terrorist groups in Syria and elsewhere. Bandar is personally in charge of all matters related to Syria and the initiatives to oust Assad in favor of a Muslim Brotherhood leadership. He also openly states that he can control terrorist actions in Sochi, meaning that he can either give them an operational green or a red light. His reach is also said to include the Chechen terrorists, which should cause a number of pundits on both sides of the theoretical political divide to rethink what we were told about the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the Saudi national, visited by Mrs. Obama, who quietly disappeared into the night. That, however, is reserved for another column.

If Putin does not acquiesce to the Saudi’s demands, all possibilities will remain on the table. Also, the U.S. and Israel have been squarely on the side of the Saudis in this matter, reminding us all that Middle Eastern politics make strange bedfellows.

We should take note of the October 2013 bus bombing in Volgograd, Central Russia by female suicide bomber Naida Asivalova of Dagestan. In context, terrorist threats and bombings such as this are real evidence that such terrorist activity is actually a proxy war by another means. While many will consider this bombing the act of a crazed, brainwashed killer acting under religious motivation, few will see it as part of an asymmetrical war with larger implications. That bombing, and other less recent acts and threats, have been done to remind Putin of who controls the terrorists and what demands need to be met to avoid further terrorist acts. It is also important to note the timing of the bus bombing. It was done far enough in advance to cause Olympic participants to rethink their participation, thus causing Putin economic backlash and to perhaps lose face on the international stage. Truly, we are seeing a game of chess at three levels on the geopolitical stage.

In the end, the Olympic terror threat is directly related to Putin’s stance on backing Assad and Syria against the wishes of the Saudis and by extension, the U.S. and the Israelis. If the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi was insufficient to expose the covert fight for Syria, perhaps the deaths of more in Sochi will awaken people to the real world game of Risk that’s taking place on the world stage.

From Benghazi to Sochi, perhaps via Boston, it’s all about a larger global realignment of power where the Muslim Brotherhood is installed in countries across the Middle East to destabilize the region. Whether it’s Sochi, Benghazi or even Boston, the lie is bigger, the stakes are higher, the agenda is much deeper than most can imagine. Terrorism is a nation-state proxy war by other means.


























Lone Survivor and Insufferable Anti-American Self-Righteousness

The “Lone Survivor” Litmus Test



Let’s talk reality: When the film shows jihadists storming into a village and lopping off a man’s head, it understates their atrocities. I don’t know what has to be done to penetrate the thick skulls of the willfully ignorant, but the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies are evil to a degree Americans (obviously) have trouble comprehending.



...Though there are no perfect men, there is good and evil, and the SEALs were (and are) doing great good against unspeakable evil.—David French “Lone Survivor and Insufferable Anti-American Self-Righteousness”http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368556/lone-survivor-and-insufferable-anti-american-self-righteousness-david-french

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”—Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868-1956) “The Friends of Voltaire”—1906

Now that I have finally watched the movie “Lone Survivor” I feel qualified to weigh in on the controversy stirred up by the film.  What do I mean by controversy?

I am referring to liberal versus conservative reaction toward the film.  Although there are exceptions to the rule, generally the conservative reaction has been quite positive, while the liberal response has been lukewarm to negative.  No surprise there.



Conservative pundit Glenn Beck:http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2014/01/15/Glenn-Beck-challenges-writer-to-read-Lone-Survivor-review-to-Navy-SEALs-face/7081389820183/ offered to fly a film reviewer for the “LA Times”http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-26/film-tv/lone-survivor-mark-wahlberg-review/ down to Texas to confront former SEAL and author of “Lone Survivor,” Marcus Luttrell.  “If you have the balls to say what you just said to Marcus Luttrell and back it up, go for it,” Beck said.  (Not to nitpick, but as the reviewer is a woman, I would imagine that we are talking ovaries and not gonads here.  Then again, the times being what they are, I hesitate to draw any hasty conclusions.  In any event, Beck got his point across).http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/

In fairness to the “LA Times” I should mention that one of their film critics (Betsy Sharkey)http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-lone-survivor-review-20131225,0,6791422.story wrote a review of “Lone Survivor” that, if not exactly glowing, is much more evenhanded than the review that Beck (and numerous others) took issue with.

Leftist attitude regarding films that deal with the US military: PTSD-addled victims of America’s imperial hubris

David French nicely sums up the Leftist attitude regarding films that deal with the US military: “To them, there’s only one acceptable way to portray American soldiers—as PTSD-addled victims of America’s imperial hubris.  Any other story is merely a ‘jingoistic’ and ‘pornographic’ example of ‘war propaganda.’”http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/lone_survivor_a_pro_war_propaganda_surprise_hit/

After years of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-American indoctrination via our “educational system,” it is no surprise that there are numerous Americans who automatically assume that the USA is “the bad guy” in any international conflict—heck, there doesn’t even need to be a conflict for them to assume that America is wrong.  It is a given.

Our children are taught to “Think globally, act locally.”  A worthy sentiment on the face of it I suppose, but unstated behind the “happy face” exterior is the Far Left’s leitmotif that nation states (countries) are passe, and globalism is the only goal worth striving for.  The idea of American exceptionalism is treated as a joke.

Undergirding the condescending snobbishness of the cultural elite’s disdain for the American middle-class (the historically despised bourgeoisie) are the teachings of Marx, Gramsci, Lukacs, Marcuse, Alinsky, and a host of other anti-freedom, anti-Western, anti-capitalist, anti-God, anti-USA demagogues—but that is the subject for a different article.http://revolutionharry.blogspot.com/2010/02/cultural-marxism-is-planned-destruction.html

http://frankfurtschool.us/history.htm

http://www.westernrevival.org/who_stole_our_culture.htm

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

http://www.towncrierdubuque.com/the_town_crier/socialism-america-began

Suffice it to say that America’s poor and middle-class has a long history of bearing the brunt of America’s wars.  The gulf between the elites who plan and instigate America’s overseas military actions and the military personnel who actually do the fighting has never been greater than it is today.  (The gulf between the elites and America’s poor and middle-class has also never been greater, but again, that is the subject for another article).

I agree with Mark Twain’s sentiment that “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”  I support our troops always—our government not so much.  Unfortunately, it is the government elites who plan our “overseas adventures,” and IMHO they have been doing one p—s poor job for waay too long.  Rushing headlong into untenable wars with no long-term goal, exit strategy, or commitment to WIN is not my idea of a smart game-plan—call me peculiar.

If you don’t plan on winning a fight then why in God’s name start one in the first place?  That is elementary school “Common Sense 101,” for crying out loud—but I’m veering off message.

SEAL Code
To understand the vast difference between the Left’s weltanschauung and the conservative view, it is instructive to look at the SEAL Code, which reads in part:http://navyseals.com/nsw/seal-code-warrior-creed/

Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate
Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield
Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit
Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates
Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation
Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies
Earn your Trident everyday
...My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.

...Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.

What could the Far Left possibly find offensive about the SEAL Code?  In a word—everything.  (“Back in the day” we didn’t have a formal SEAL Code, and had to make do with short maxims—e.g. “The only easy day was yesterday”—and rather salty marching cadences.  I recall one that ended with a blunt expository statement followed by a query: “I’m a f—king frogman; who the f—k are you!?”  Granted, as a code it left a lot to be desired, but it’s what we had).

Why do I say that the Far Left (and through osmosis the Left as a whole, to varying degrees) finds everything about the SEAL Code offensive?  Well…they are arrogant globalists who find the idea of patriotism to be at best quaintly retardataire, and at worst counter-revolutionary bourgeois bile.http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/agenda-21-revealed-you-need-to-know-this/

  They believe in, teach, and promote the poisonous absurdity of multiculturalism.http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2010/01/multicultural-insanity-new-realism.html

  They tend to be amoral atheists (in fact, if not in name) who cultivate the base insidiousness of moral relativity—i.e the Taliban’s destruction of the ancient Bamiyan Buddhas is considered to be on a par with “loyalty to country and Team”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1326063/After-1700-years-Buddhas-fall-to-Taliban-dynamite.html (also see “multiculturalism”).  The idea of being personally responsible for their actions is anathema to them—”victimhood” is their rallying cry and cause celebre.  “Take responsibility for your actions?”  Value loyalty, honesty, integrity, and commitment?  Puh-leeze.  We are talking about the Far Left here—graduates of “The Machiavelli School of Lies and Skullduggery.”http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/washington/140111

In short, that which is glaringly virtuous and praise-worthy to conservatives, morphs into bourgeois drivel for the radical Left.  I strongly disagree with them, and I assure you that I am not tempted in the least to “defend to the death their right to say it.”  Screw ‘em, and the horse they rode in on.

And kudos to Peter Berg, Marcus Luttrell, and all those involved in the filming of “Lone Survivor.”  IMO it ranks right up there with “Black Hawk Down,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “We Were Soldiers” and other classics of the genre.  Such movies shine a light on the hard-to-capture essence of Hemingway’s observation that “No story is terrible if the story is true…and if it affirms courage and grace under pressure.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoLFk4JK_RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnV6wM-vd9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMfUiwIjDdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0rKSPteOI4

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/450487-no-subject-is-terrible-if-the-story-is-true-if

I do not love war—I hate war.  But I am not so naïve as to think that we live in a world where freedom and righteousness need not be defended—at times to “the last full measure.”  I thank God for our military “sheepdogs” who confront life out in the field—not out of hatred for the wolves in front of them, but out of a sense of camaraderie for the other guardians who stand with them, and love and devotion toward family, friends, and country far behind.http://www.thelastfullmeasure.com/gettysburg_address.htm

http://navyseals.com/3454/sealfit-rules-engagement-sheepdog/