Well, the Left and their sheep allies shot their bolt again, but to no avail. Dashing their hopes of another reason to ban semiautomatic rifles (and whatever else on their wish list), was the revelation that the shooter did not bring an AR-15 or other type of magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle. There can no longer be any doubt about what they want - their goal is to restrict the People from anything anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns and maybe a few firearms popular for target shooting. Just as in the UK, the attack on these will follow shortly after.
Also, it appears that the Navy Yard had private contractors for base security. Great, now we have mercenaries in addition to militarized cops controlling our troops and keeping them locked up, unarmed, and unable to help us.
It is a sad irony that the one great fear of many of our Founding Fathers - the standing army, is now seen by many American citizens as our only hope against a totalitarian takeover of the US.
I don't like the idea of such a dangerous precedent - Sulla's march into Rome (among other things of course) spelled the end of the Rule of Law in the Roman Republic, but even that last hope is fast being negated as a possibility. Although he knew that the would-be participants had legitimate grievances Washington nipped the Newburg Conspiracy in the bud because he foresaw the direction such a move could take us. A decisive move by DHS and other attached and willing law enforcement personnel (maybe also private contractors) could well lockdown a base, its personnel, and critical equipment in the blink of an eye.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main post:
Hat tip to Info Wars and The Blaze.
This is sickening.
Smarting from his defeat and at the hands of just about the entire world - with Russia of particular note, Obama has now lifted the legal restrictions on proving arms to rebels groups that would otherwise be illegible for aid due to their terrorist activities. He will now no longer maintain the charade of "vetting" Syrian rebel groups to direct weapons to "moderate" groups. The spiteful child has decided that he is going "whole hog" and will provide arms and other aid to any group that fights against the Syrian government.
Let's be clear - the government of the United States will now arm Al-Quaeda and Al-Nusra types.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885
http://www.infowars.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad's regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.
The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."....."
Make no mistake - to topple the Syrian government, Obama will not mask his intentions behind even the most sheer of veils; we will send weapons to groups that would- tomorrow morning, use them against the US if they did not have something else going on at the moment.
We are now looking at a situation that Glenn Beck noted falls within the definition of Treason as specified in the Constitution of the United States. Beck tempers his words and carefully suggests the possibility but I say that it is a done deal that he crossed the line:
“Just so we are all clear on this, let me read article 3, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution about treason,” Beck said. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
[Note that the definition does not provide exemptions for supporting our enemies if they also happen to be doing things of which the President approves]
[Referring to past suggestions of possible Treasonous acts of Obama] "...........“But by him waiving this law, he has admitted that he knows he is giving aid and comfort to a global terrorist organization, because there’s no other reason to waive that law!”
“This president, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner, and anyone else who stands for giving aid and comfort, military support to Al Qaeda in Syria, should be impeached,” Beck declared. “Notice there’s Republicans and Democrats, so it’s clearly not about party.”.......
Beck noted that the president can waive the law and engage in military action if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was determined to be an immediate threat to the United States — but the president made it very clear that he is not in an interview with CNN...."
We must note that the Framers of our Constitution were very careful in how they worded the meaning of the charge of Treason. In England, there had been a history of employing that charge for actions that would stretch the word treason to mean far more than that which we would expect. The Framers would have none of that - they made sure that Treason was clearly defined so that only knowingly-done acts, such as those which would clearly cause grievous harm to the United States and.or its People, could bring that charge.
[Referring to past suggestions of possible Treasonous acts of Obama] "...........“But by him waiving this law, he has admitted that he knows he is giving aid and comfort to a global terrorist organization, because there’s no other reason to waive that law!”
“This president, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner, and anyone else who stands for giving aid and comfort, military support to Al Qaeda in Syria, should be impeached,” Beck declared. “Notice there’s Republicans and Democrats, so it’s clearly not about party.”.......
Beck noted that the president can waive the law and engage in military action if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was determined to be an immediate threat to the United States — but the president made it very clear that he is not in an interview with CNN...."
We must note that the Framers of our Constitution were very careful in how they worded the meaning of the charge of Treason. In England, there had been a history of employing that charge for actions that would stretch the word treason to mean far more than that which we would expect. The Framers would have none of that - they made sure that Treason was clearly defined so that only knowingly-done acts, such as those which would clearly cause grievous harm to the United States and.or its People, could bring that charge.
My head is spinning along with the turning of my stomach. Only is our current society could even the most Manchurian of candidates even give this move a second thought; the expected outcry from the people would be enough to make one forget the entire thing. the In decades past, the very attempt to make such a move would only be done with the utmost of secrecy. Obama senses that the People have grown so fearful of losing what they have that he can publicly state his intentions to commit a clearly treasonous act.
By this act, Obama will again risk getting the US involved with a war with nations such as Russia. Unless he decides to let Obama demonstrate his willingness to bring harm to the nation that he "leads", Putin understandably will not sit by idly while the Syrian government is beset by rebels groups that have been armed to the teeth without even the formality of first being asked if they are nice guys.
I am quite finished with mere calls for action. The People must cry out that this must be stopped and that at least preliminary steps be taken to follow the procedures for Impeachment as outlined in the Constitution.
As citizens, we don't have the right to ignore this act or restrict our actions to complaints to our elected officials,
We are obligated to legally alter or abolish what has become an inherently illegal presidency.
Years from now, young people will ask their elders what they did in response to what is being done to our country. I don't plan to tell them that I just went on with my life and did nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment