March 7, 2013
By Lauri B. Regan
With each passing day of President Obama's second term he continues to consolidate power and undermine any notion of conventional democratic governing norms.
Not only did Obama make history as the first black president, he made history by winning a second term despite less than optimal polling numbers, divisive tactics, failed policies, an abysmal economy with high unemployment and gas prices, and breaches of promises to the American people. Today he continues taking his campaign to the next level, further demonizing the GOP in the hopes of winning back the House in 2014. Americans from both sides of the aisle must begin to pay attention to the incremental power shifts occurring in the federal government.
While many Americans feared an Obama unleashed, most were not anticipating the federal government arming itself with massive amounts of ammunition (reportedly 1.6 billion bullets) while at the same time threatening the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. Americans were not contemplating that, in the face of the sequestration's implementation forcing the scaling down of our military despite imminent dangers and the simultaneous push for Global Zero, the Obama administration would purchase almost 3000 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) for domestic use.
In Obama's first term, his administration proudly touted its terrorist kill list as a means of keeping the country safe. And while many were angered about the use of drones to kill enemies abroad, no one considered the possibility that such tactics would be used here at home. The Washington Examiner recently reported, however the drone program might now be on steroids. In response to a question from Sen. Rand Paul as to whether Obama "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial," Eric Holder responded:
Let us think about that statement. Yes, 9/11 would certainly constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would have justified Dick Cheney's order for the military to shoot down a hijacked plane headed for the White House, the Capitol, or other site that would have resulted in massive loss of American life. But that is not what is happening at the moment. At the moment, Department of Homeland Security is ordering that drones be adapted to detect a gun-carrying citizen at the same time that it is purchasing souped-up armored vehicles typically found on the battlefield. One report estimates that by 2020, there will be 30,000 drones flying in American airspace.
When approximately 8% of discretionary military spending must be cut due to sequestration, I fail to see why the purchase of armored vehicles for domestic use is a priority. When the Navy must cancel the scheduled deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Gulf due to insufficient funds, how does the government have the funds to arm itself here at home? J.E. Dyer recently noted, "The level of carrier presence is insufficient today to execute a limited-strike campaign against Iran while containing the potential backlash." But we can afford to arm ourselves here at home in order to strike out against whom, exactly?
I feel frightened that my government is arming itself in a seemingly warlike fashion for the first time since the Civil War. After all, Obama is a man whose disdain for America and the Constitution has been worn as a badge of honor and whose policies of reaching out to terrorists, propping up Islamists, and inviting the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House is of grave concern. And I recall that in July of 2008 Obama stated:
Putting aside the fact that Obama has never articulated national security objectives for his administration, he has yet to explain why a civilian national security force is required to be funded with money the government does not have to face an enemy or threat that is nonexistent. Is it the millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners, and other successful Americans who will be forced to share their wealth at the point of a gun? Why in the world does the DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, over 2700 vehicles impervious to mines, and up to 33,000 drones?
As a Jew, I fear the beginning of history repeating itself. The similarities in cultural transformations and domestic issues between America in 2013 and Germany circa 1933 are quite frightening. America's economy is a mess and anti-Semitism is on the rise. Throughout history, there is one group of people who provide the perfect scapegoat when difficulties in a community appear. The 21st century is no different. From Occupy Wall Street to the Department of Defense, the old stereotypes are back in full force. As Ben Shapiro reported on the OWS movement:
But the old canards have now infiltrated the highest offices in the land. While Chuck Hagel had his Jewish defenders, there is no question that some of his more abhorrent statements fall squarely in line with the dangerous stereotypes that Jews control the world. Bill Maher joined the fray in announcing, to resounding applause from his audience, "the Israelis are controlling our government."
On college campuses (many academic programs are funded by the Saudis), on the streets of our cities, on television and in movies, and in our newspapers, seemingly intelligent and well-respected Americans are comfortable spewing anti-Semitic views that were taboo just a few years ago. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is being pursued by some of Obama's biggest donors and supporters. And the President of the United States, disciple of unapologetic anti-Semites Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, has helped mainstream offensive bias in his selection of high-powered czars and cabinet members.
So yes, I am nervous when the federal government under the leadership of Barack Obama begins to arm itself for no apparent reason. One cannot convince me that we need these measures in order to protect us from terrorist attack. Waterboarding terrorists protected us from terrorist attacks but the Obama administration did away with that. Killing terrorists by drone strike without extracting information, while justifiable, is not optimal from a national security perspective. Claiming that al Qaeda is decimated and refusing to use the terms "War on Terror" and "Islamic Fundamentalist" is harming our national security.
Withdrawing American power from the region where terrorists thrive and tanking our economy risks our national security. Stealthily ramping up a "civilian national security force" under the guise of Homeland Security provides no domestic purpose other than that which history has proven tragically destructive and lethal to society.
Alas, in the face of governmental attacks on the right of American citizens to bear arms, it is important to recall why that right is so precious. Guilio Meotti recently wrote an article entitled, "Jews, Hold onto Your Guns! Obama is Coming," in which he recognized:
Americans need to take notice of what is occurring under a man of questionable character, disdain for Constitutional limits on his power, a quest for transformational measures that have yet to be articulated and clearly defined, and a vitriolic reaction to those who do not abide by his rules. Now is not the time for apathy, it is time for heeding the lessons of history and speaking out to prevent future atrocities. America does not need a civilian national security force and it should be prevented from being assembled.
By Lauri B. Regan
With each passing day of President Obama's second term he continues to consolidate power and undermine any notion of conventional democratic governing norms.
Not only did Obama make history as the first black president, he made history by winning a second term despite less than optimal polling numbers, divisive tactics, failed policies, an abysmal economy with high unemployment and gas prices, and breaches of promises to the American people. Today he continues taking his campaign to the next level, further demonizing the GOP in the hopes of winning back the House in 2014. Americans from both sides of the aisle must begin to pay attention to the incremental power shifts occurring in the federal government.
While many Americans feared an Obama unleashed, most were not anticipating the federal government arming itself with massive amounts of ammunition (reportedly 1.6 billion bullets) while at the same time threatening the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. Americans were not contemplating that, in the face of the sequestration's implementation forcing the scaling down of our military despite imminent dangers and the simultaneous push for Global Zero, the Obama administration would purchase almost 3000 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) for domestic use.
In Obama's first term, his administration proudly touted its terrorist kill list as a means of keeping the country safe. And while many were angered about the use of drones to kill enemies abroad, no one considered the possibility that such tactics would be used here at home. The Washington Examiner recently reported, however the drone program might now be on steroids. In response to a question from Sen. Rand Paul as to whether Obama "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial," Eric Holder responded:
It
is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in
which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and
applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the
military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.
Let us think about that statement. Yes, 9/11 would certainly constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would have justified Dick Cheney's order for the military to shoot down a hijacked plane headed for the White House, the Capitol, or other site that would have resulted in massive loss of American life. But that is not what is happening at the moment. At the moment, Department of Homeland Security is ordering that drones be adapted to detect a gun-carrying citizen at the same time that it is purchasing souped-up armored vehicles typically found on the battlefield. One report estimates that by 2020, there will be 30,000 drones flying in American airspace.
When approximately 8% of discretionary military spending must be cut due to sequestration, I fail to see why the purchase of armored vehicles for domestic use is a priority. When the Navy must cancel the scheduled deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Gulf due to insufficient funds, how does the government have the funds to arm itself here at home? J.E. Dyer recently noted, "The level of carrier presence is insufficient today to execute a limited-strike campaign against Iran while containing the potential backlash." But we can afford to arm ourselves here at home in order to strike out against whom, exactly?
I feel frightened that my government is arming itself in a seemingly warlike fashion for the first time since the Civil War. After all, Obama is a man whose disdain for America and the Constitution has been worn as a badge of honor and whose policies of reaching out to terrorists, propping up Islamists, and inviting the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House is of grave concern. And I recall that in July of 2008 Obama stated:
We
cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the
national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a
civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as
strong, just as well funded.
Putting aside the fact that Obama has never articulated national security objectives for his administration, he has yet to explain why a civilian national security force is required to be funded with money the government does not have to face an enemy or threat that is nonexistent. Is it the millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners, and other successful Americans who will be forced to share their wealth at the point of a gun? Why in the world does the DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, over 2700 vehicles impervious to mines, and up to 33,000 drones?
As a Jew, I fear the beginning of history repeating itself. The similarities in cultural transformations and domestic issues between America in 2013 and Germany circa 1933 are quite frightening. America's economy is a mess and anti-Semitism is on the rise. Throughout history, there is one group of people who provide the perfect scapegoat when difficulties in a community appear. The 21st century is no different. From Occupy Wall Street to the Department of Defense, the old stereotypes are back in full force. As Ben Shapiro reported on the OWS movement:
In New York, ralliers hold signs reading, "Google: (1) Wall Street Jews; (2) Jewish Billionaires; (3) Jews & Fed Rsrv Bank," "Gaza Supports The Occupation of Wall Street," and shouting ugly canards like "Jews control Wall Street."
The American Nazi Party is supporting OWS, with leader Rocky Suhayda
stating, "Who holds the wealth and power in this country -- the
Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes all this
filth happen -- the Judeo-Capitalists."
But the old canards have now infiltrated the highest offices in the land. While Chuck Hagel had his Jewish defenders, there is no question that some of his more abhorrent statements fall squarely in line with the dangerous stereotypes that Jews control the world. Bill Maher joined the fray in announcing, to resounding applause from his audience, "the Israelis are controlling our government."
On college campuses (many academic programs are funded by the Saudis), on the streets of our cities, on television and in movies, and in our newspapers, seemingly intelligent and well-respected Americans are comfortable spewing anti-Semitic views that were taboo just a few years ago. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is being pursued by some of Obama's biggest donors and supporters. And the President of the United States, disciple of unapologetic anti-Semites Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, has helped mainstream offensive bias in his selection of high-powered czars and cabinet members.
So yes, I am nervous when the federal government under the leadership of Barack Obama begins to arm itself for no apparent reason. One cannot convince me that we need these measures in order to protect us from terrorist attack. Waterboarding terrorists protected us from terrorist attacks but the Obama administration did away with that. Killing terrorists by drone strike without extracting information, while justifiable, is not optimal from a national security perspective. Claiming that al Qaeda is decimated and refusing to use the terms "War on Terror" and "Islamic Fundamentalist" is harming our national security.
Withdrawing American power from the region where terrorists thrive and tanking our economy risks our national security. Stealthily ramping up a "civilian national security force" under the guise of Homeland Security provides no domestic purpose other than that which history has proven tragically destructive and lethal to society.
Alas, in the face of governmental attacks on the right of American citizens to bear arms, it is important to recall why that right is so precious. Guilio Meotti recently wrote an article entitled, "Jews, Hold onto Your Guns! Obama is Coming," in which he recognized:
The
first thing Adolf Hitler did, once in power, was to pass a restrictive
gun control law which forced most of the people to give up their guns.
We know how the story ended... Imagine if Germany or Poland's Jews had
been armed. Would rounding Jews up have been possible?
It
is very clear that neither the police nor the army can provide adequate
protection from sudden attacks perpetrated either by trained terrorists
or individuals. Any attempt on the lives of Jews which results in
killing or maiming will encourage repetition and will weaken deterrent
power. That's why when terror strikes, Israeli Jews run for pistols.
Americans need to take notice of what is occurring under a man of questionable character, disdain for Constitutional limits on his power, a quest for transformational measures that have yet to be articulated and clearly defined, and a vitriolic reaction to those who do not abide by his rules. Now is not the time for apathy, it is time for heeding the lessons of history and speaking out to prevent future atrocities. America does not need a civilian national security force and it should be prevented from being assembled.
American Thinker
