Tag Archives: See Ya’ in the Camp

Uncategorized

B.O. Backpedals to Cover Freudian Slip

Obama seeks to blunt Republican attack over comment

Obama, in an interview with talk radio host Michael Baisden, said, “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of enemies.”

He was backtracking from a comment he made a week ago in an interview with Univision radio in which he sought to persuade Hispanics to vote for Democratic candidates instead of Republicans: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of, ‘we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder,” Obama had said.

Republicans in hot pursuit of control of the House of Representatives in Tuesday voting were drawing attention to Obama’s “enemies” comment in hopes of encouraging more turnout by Republican voters.

Hammering home the issue was John Boehner, the Republican who would oust Democrat Nancy Pelosi as House speaker if Republicans win control of the House on Tuesday as most pollsters believe will happen.

Methinks his original comment shows his true attitude…I doubt that he concedes the existence of a “loyal opposition”…opponents ARE the enemy to him (as opposed to the friendly folks of Iran, HAMAS, Hezbollah, etc. that we need to seek understanding with).

Constitution Watch

Interpol: B.O. Grants GESTAPO Powers in US

The Chief REALLY doesn’t want to post on this…the content and implications are extremely disturbing, at least to anyone concerned with maintaining the American Constitutional system.

Obama Gives Interpol Free Hand in U.S.

No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: “Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities.”In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.

So, what’s the big deal about?

First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

Search warrents, controls on wiretaps and surveillance? “We don’t need no steenking warrants, and we sneer at your foolish Yankee ‘Bill of Rights’.”

Second, Obama has exempted Interpol’s domestic facilities — including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice — from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.

Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA. [emphasis added]

The Chief is still waiting to hear complaints from the left/lib claque that is always so quick to express their concern about some comparatively limited (albeit problematical in their own right) provisions of such laws as the Patriot Act. He suspects that this will be an infinitely long wait.

Uncategorized

Spirit of Mao Lives at U. of MN

At U, future teachers may be reeducated
They must denounce exclusionary biases and embrace the vision. (Or else.)

Sometimes the Chief has heard seni-laughing references from Minnesota friends about the “People’s Republic of Minnesota.

If this is any indication, maybe the laughter should be gone, leaving nothing but the “People’s Republic”…for real.

Do you believe in the American dream — the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools — at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus.

This is because of a series of “reforms” in the teacher education program being drafted and proposed for the U of M that forces compliance with a set of attitudes and procedures that are nearly exact reproductions of procedures implemented in ChiCom Chairman Mao Tse Tung’s disastrous “Cultural Revolution”.

In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U’s College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of “the American Dream” in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace — and be prepared to teach our state’s kids — the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic….

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the “overarching framework” for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

The first step toward “cultural competence,” says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

Wait, it gets worse:

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”…

The goal of these exercises, in the task group’s words, is to ensure that “future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.”

Good grief, Charlie Brown!…and worse yet:

What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must “develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan.”

This is what Mao referred to as “re-education”, and he built special “camps” to insure proper implementation of this program.

And what if students’ ideological purity is tainted once they begin to do practice teaching in the public schools? The task group frames the danger this way: “How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?”

Its answer? “Requir[e] training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?”

When teacher training requires a “disguise,” you know something sinister is going on.

Hard to imagine Minnesota is only 20 miles away from the Chief’s outpost. And they can’t figure out why more people are interested in home-schooling.

DISCLOSURE: The Chief is a semi-retired teacher with over a quarte-century of teaching H.S. sciences, as well as social studies, including U.S. history.

Constitution Watch

B.O.: Who needs free speech? We don’t!

President Obama has something important in common with Edward I, aka “Longshanks”

What is this about?

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted.

The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Who defines what constitutes “national, racial or religious hatred?” Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement “constitutes incitement?” You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as “incitement” to “hatred.”

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment….

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you’re still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

So, what’s it have to do with Longshanks?

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

I guess this will make the Islamic world feel right at home…back to the 13th Century!

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw “Braveheart,” you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace’s wonderful screenplay made him). Westminster I banned the telling of “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm.” And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry’s permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that “nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King’s instructions” concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling “heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers.” Why? Because such publications allegedly were “endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government.”

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky’s “Telling the Truth” and the chapter on “a great cloud of witnesses.”

At this rate might it take the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 1st Amendment?  One can only hope not.

Constitution Watch

I-net Now B.O. Target

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

This has so many problems that it boggles the mind.

Of course, just the power assumption here is a mind-bending expansion of the worst aspects of some of the Patriot Act stuff.

Then there’s the obvious one about having those with their hands on the net being subject ot government regulation…what was that bit about “no law…abridging freedom of speech…”?

Anyone that has have been certified as “cybersecurity professionals” and given a federal network operators license would be S.O.L. in B.O.’s Brave New World (BOBNW). The many non-degree cybergeeks with partial (and even full) degrees in other areas like physics, math, etc. could be completely frozen out…but hey, a lot of them are rather libertarianish anyway, so from the point of view of the BOBNW getting them out of the info roadway would be a positive political benefit to the Administration and it’s crypto-fascist Czars and others of that ilk.

obameinfuhrer21.jpg
Possible new control links for Obamanet!

Constitution Watch

She’s Makin a List, Checkin’ it twice…

2 Comments

Among the recent spewage from the Janet Reno Napolitano (same difference!) Department of Homeland Security is this little number:

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

untitled.png
(Click on image for link to document.)

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

According to that, if one is a supporter of either the 2nd, or 10th Amendments, or a veteran, you could be worthy of watching out for as a possible “rightwing extremist”, or sympathizer.  Even more threatening (shudder, gasp) are those who might not like President Obama for a variety of reasons.  (Admittedly, some of those reasons ARE truly rank, but hey Janet – there ARE a lot of us who dislike the B.O. regime because of policies and political differences…and we’re not all neo-Nazi racists…in spite of what you infer.

There are other categories of likely suspects for being right-wing subversives…dang!…I fit right in there in many instances, in spite of NOT being a closet Nazi, Klanner, or even a former member of the (actually innocuous) John Birch Society.  (I WAS in the 1980 SD Reagan delegation though…THAT must be it!)

Putting this together with the flap a couple of weeks ago about the Missouri State “Fusion” information office, it sort of starts to make a pattern….

“Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not really after me!”

Constitution Watch

See Ya In the “Re-education” Camp!

‘Fusion Centers’ Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members
Do you like Ron Paul or oppose abortion? You may be a member of a militia, according to a new report by a government information collection agency.

If you’re an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive(sic) literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That’s according to “The Modern Militia Movement,” a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

“Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created,” the Feb. 20 report reads. “Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations.”

This is so chilling that even the ACLU has responded with shock. It is effectively setting up rules of law-enforcement engagement that issue a license to at least harass political opposition to the ascension of the B.O. regime.

By the way, although the scary implementation is taking place with the B.O. administration, the legal framework that established the opportunity for this abuse goes back to the pseudo Conservative Bush presidency.

A curse on both parties’ houses in this case!

Dang! Wonder where I can get a Ron Paul sticker?