January 11, 2013
Dear President Obama:
Both Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden have said you are weighing using “executive action” to implement gun registration and licensing beyond even the ban on semi-automatic firearms proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and others.
When the National Firearms Act passed in 1934, Congress still understood that it didn’t have the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate Title II weapons, so it imposed a tax – an exorbitant tax, perhaps, but still a tax. Since then, however, overbroad interpretations of its power to regulate “interstate commerce” have become the norm, and Congress now feels free to legislate gun laws.
IT’S CALLED ‘USURPATION OF POWER,’ MR. PRESIDENT
“usurpation: …the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.” – Webster’s Dictionary
Apparently, however, even congressional usurpation of power is no longer sufficient for you: What you now threaten violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Since you seem to have forgotten it, here it is:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
Is your usurpation of power by circumventing the legislative process a bid to turn our Republic into an autocracy? What will be your next Executive Order? Will it give you another four – or perhaps forty – years in the White House?
IT’S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM
Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?
They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be.
And what happens next, Mr. President? Do S.W.A.T. teams break into the homes of our citizens at night to confiscate arms and arrest offenders? Make no mistake: That is what enforcing this law will require.
And what happens when, inevitably, some resist? Do you honestly believe people will go peacefully into bondage? How many will die as the direct result of your actions?
There is no need to send the Secret Service to my door, Mr. President (although I suspect you might anyway). I am not advocating violence; I am merely saying what others are afraid to.
The real question, Mr. President, is whether you so hunger for power that you are willing to foment what might be the next American Revolution. Will that be your enduring legacy?
At the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidus I, facing demands by the numerically superior Persian army for the Spartans to surrender their arms, responded with what is now expressed as “Molon labe.”
It means, “Come and get them.”
Armatissimi e liberissimi,
F. Paul Valone II
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International
- Biden: Obama Prepared to Use Executive Order on Gun Control (gds44.wordpress.com)
- Guns And Obama: The Stand (personalliberty.com)
- Assault on the Second Amendment (papundits.wordpress.com)
Submitted by may on October 28, 2012 – 12:44am
From the evidence thus far, it appears that the decisions to deny military help to the US Consulate in Benghazi and subsequently to the CIA safe house was made by President Obama.
The Obama Administration tired to shift the blame to the CIA for the lack of military support for the US Consulate and the CIA safe house. A CIA spokeswoman denied that requests for help had been turned down by the CIA, implying the decision was made by President Obama,
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.
“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
General David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has made no comments on what happened in Benghazi. Petraeus has not appeared on any news broadcasts and has given no interview. Petraeus will not lie for Obama. Breitbart has reported that Petraeus has denied that the CIA was the agency denying help to those requesting it in Benghazi.
Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus’s denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist “would have been a presidential decision.”
Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were “happening.”
Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.
Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
The Breitbart report continued,
As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame:
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Why would President Barack Obama deny military support to the US Consulate in Benghazi and subsequently deny support to the CIA safe house?
Did Obama want to conceal the fact the attack was conduced by al-Qaeda terrorists? Would this have interfered with Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda is vanishing since the killing of Osama bin Laden?
Was the Terrorist attack in Benghazi organized by Iran or Syria in retaliation for President Obama and Ambassador running guns into Syria and placing the weapons in the hands of Assad? Was Obama afraid of starting a war with Iran or even with Russia?
Did President Obama want Ambassador Stevens killed because Stevens knew too much? Were Stevens and Obama running guns to al-Qaeda in Syria much like Holder and Obama were running guns to drug cartels in Mexico with operation Fast and Furious? Did Obama think allowing al-Qaeda to assassinate Stevens would put the lid on the Syrian gun running operation before it could become a scandal just before the General Election?
Congress and other responsible investigators must ask these difficult questions. If President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others are innocent, they need to be cleared of suspicion. I suspect the final answers regarding the involvement of President Barack Obama and others in the Obama Administration will shock our nation.
- Hmmmm: CIA David Petraeus says, “Obama is full of it” (thoughtsandrantings.com)
- CIA ‘s Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus (sgtreport.com)
- BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (pjmedia.com)
- BREITBART by JOE POLLACK (Evidence Mounts Against Obama – JM) (sohereandnow.wordpress.com)
- Chris Stevens’ Last Words (frontpagemag.com)
- Petraeus v. Obama (nationalreview.com)
- Petraeus(CIA) Throws Obama Under the Bus (tarpon.wordpress.com)
Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. announce the upcoming retirement of its Vice President Central Division, Larry Vauclin.
Vauclin’s retirement was announced by Bollinger Executive Vice President, Ben Bordelon, who said, “Larry has been a critical part of the growth of Bollinger over the past 16 years, and a mentor to many in the shipyard industry over his 52 year career. His attention to detail, hard work and focus on client satisfaction have helped create a solid foundation for us going forward. Larry’s stamp will forever be a part of the Bollinger family history.”
Vauclin started his shipyard career in Houma, Louisiana in 1960 with Main Iron Works working as a￼ supervisor until leaving to help start Quality Shipyard in 1969 as yard superintendent, working his way up to executive vice president / general manager for new construction and repair.
His career at Bollinger started in 1996 as vice president and general manager of the Larose facility and included additional Bollinger locations in Amelia for new construction and repair operations. In 2006 Vauclin became the vice president central division which covered three of Bollinger’s central Louisiana repair and conversion facilities.
Vauclin has been instrumental in the success of Bollinger’s repair and conversion facilities and has played an important role in leading these facilities with his vast knowledge of the industry, and has contributed to Bollinger being named one of the safest shipyards in America.
Bollinger is the largest vessel repair company in the Gulf of Mexico region with a total of 28 dry-docks in Louisiana and Texas. Bollinger has 10 shipyards and all are strategically located between New Orleans and Houston with direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway.
- Bollinger Announces the Appointment of Charles “Skip” Bowen as Vice President Government Relations (maritime-executive.com)
By Sanjeev Miglani KABUL – Sun Jun 3, 2012 3:38am EDT
(Reuters) – China and Afghanistan will sign an agreement in the coming days that strategically deepens their ties, Afghan officials say, the strongest signal yet that Beijing wants a role beyond economic partnership as Western forces prepare to leave the country.
China has kept a low political profile through much of the decade-long international effort to stabilize Afghanistan, choosing instead to pursue an economic agenda, including locking in future supply from Afghanistan’s untapped mineral resources.
As the U.S.-led coalition winds up military engagement and hands over security to local forces, Beijing, along with regional powers, is gradually stepping up involvement in an area that remains at risk from being overrun by Islamist insurgents.
Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai will hold talks on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Beijing this week, where they will seal a wide-ranging pact governing their ties, including security cooperation.
Afghanistan has signed a series of strategic partnership agreements including with the United States, India and Britain among others in recent months, described by one Afghan official as taking out “insurance cover” for the period after the end of 2014 when foreign troops leave.
“The president of Afghanistan will be meeting the president of China in Beijing and what will happen is the elevation of our existing, solid relationship to a new level, to a strategic level,” Janan Musazai, a spokesman for the Afghan foreign ministry, told Reuters.
“It would certainly cover a broad spectrum which includes cooperation in the security sector, a very significant involvement in the economic sector, and the cultural field.”
He declined to give details about security cooperation, but Andrew Small, an expert on China at the European Marshall Fund who has tracked its ties with South Asia, said the training of security forces was one possibility.
China has signaled it will not contribute to a multilateral fund to sustain the Afghan national security forces – estimated to cost $4.1 billion per year after 2014 – but it could directly train Afghan soldiers, Small said.
“They’re concerned that there is going to be a security vacuum and they’re concerned about how the neighbors will behave,” he said.
Beijing has been running a small program with Afghan law enforcement officials, focused on counter-narcotics and involving visits to China’s restive Xinjiang province, whose western tip touches the Afghan border.
Training of Afghan forces is expected to be modest, and nowhere near the scale of the Western effort to bring them up to speed, or even India’s role in which small groups of officers are trained at military institutions in India.
China wants to play a more active role, but it will weigh the sensitivities of neighboring nations in a troubled corner of the world, said Zhang Li, a professor of South Asian studies at Sichuan University who has been studying the future of Sino-Afghan ties.
“I don’t think that the U.S. withdrawal also means a Chinese withdrawal, but especially in security affairs in Afghanistan, China will remain low-key and cautious,” he said. “China wants to play more of a role there, but each option in doing that will be assessed carefully before any steps are taken.”
JOSTLING FOR INFLUENCE
Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors Iran and Pakistan, but also nearby India and Russia, have all jostled for influence in the country at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, and many expect the competition to heat up after 2014.
India has poured aid into Afghanistan and like China has invested in its mineral sector, committing billions of dollars to develop iron ore deposits, as well as build a steel plant and other infrastructure.
Pakistan, which is accused of having close ties with the Taliban, has repeatedly complained about India’s expanding role in Afghanistan, seeing Indian moves as a plot to encircle it.
“India-Pakistan proxy fighting is one of the main worries,” said Small.
In February, China hosted a trilateral dialogue involving officials from Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss efforts to seek reconciliation with the Taliban.
It was first time Beijing involved itself directly and openly in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.
Afghan foreign ministry spokesman Musazai said Kabul supported any effort to bring peace in the country. “China has close ties with Afghanistan. It also has very close ties with Pakistan and if it can help advance the vision of peace and stability in Afghanistan we welcome it.”
(Additional reporting by Chris Buckley in BEIJING; Editing by Daniel Magnowski)
- The TAPI Scam – Why Is India Boldly Taking Responsibility for the Pipeline That Will Never Be Built? (therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com)
When it comes to the business community, the White House may feel like an abused partner in a bad marriage. President Obama likely believes that he keeps giving business what it wants yet gets nothing but complaints and unemployed Americans in return.
His gift giving began with the stimulus package, full of goodies for the preferred businesses. It continued with the auto bailout, payroll tax holidays, accelerated depreciation, “cash for clunkers,” first-time homebuyers credit, and even the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
In fact, Obama even created an Economic Advisory Recovery Board chaired by GE’s Jeff Immelt whose purpose is to report to the White House on ways to improve the economy. The board was created in 2009, nearly three years ago.
The president speaks passionately about entrepreneurs and innovation all the time. He continually addresses the need for economic-friendly policies, like more spectrum for wireless broadband. On the surface, the relationship between major business leaders and the White House seems quite cozy and comfortable.
Yet, the economy continues to stagnate and unemployment remains above nine percent. Adding salt to the wound, business owners and executives, including many former Obama supporters, seem likely to support the Republican candidate next November.
Indeed, more and more business leaders are speaking out against the president. The dam broke in mid-2010 when then-Business Roundtable Chairman and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said that the Obama administration was creating “an increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.”
Earlier this year, Steve Wynn, the billionaire head of Wynn Resorts and a Democrat, said that “the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States.”
Now public criticism is common. Just this month a poll in Chief Executive magazine concluded that 85 percent of CEOs rank Obama’s performance as “weak” or “poor,” with one CEO saying, “The current administration is so anti-business, we don’t plan on any expansion until we have a new president. We just hope we’ll be around to see that day.”
Why the disconnect?
Business is not just big companies. Smaller companies dominate America. Entrepreneurs create almost all the new jobs. As I recount in my book, “The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream,” a 2010 Kauffman Foundation study found that “without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy.”
Yet small businesses have gotten little access or attention in this White House. The White House appears oblivious to the psychological impact of GE heading the committee that advises the president on how to create jobs. GE is so big and reliant on government contracts that its problems and challenges are not shared by most American businesses.
Moreover, the federal government is hurting business and job creation as it increases the regulatory burden.
Making a payroll means dealing with new taxes, health care mandates and the cost of new regulations. To compensate for the added burden, businesses must hire scores of accountants and lawyers to decipher and follow all the new rules. Washington has shifted from occasionally helpful to downright destructive of business interests.
Anti-business actions, proposals and rhetoric make it worse. Frequent talk of “spreading the wealth around,” “corporate greed” and new tax proposals all discourage investment and job creation.
Closing Boeing’s new South Carolina factory, raiding Gibson Guitars for violating an ambiguous law in another country, and changing unionization rules to allow sudden union formation all force companies to invest and hire overseas. Encouraging hostility to business by embracing the Occupy Wall Street protesters only makes matters worse.
Results must match rhetoric. President Obama excited the business community when he promised to double exports in five years. Yet it took almost three years to simply get three Bush-era trade deals signed and no other deals have been made to promote exports and trade.
Nothing has been done on repatriation of corporate profits, lowering our absurdly high corporate taxes or shifting our educational system to train Americans for the 3.4 million jobs that are open. While college-educated, liberal arts majors protest in American cities, jobs for engineers, technicians and skilled machine operators go unfilled.
President Obama and his advisors have scant business, managerial or leadership experience. The president has relied on personality and oratory and the Democrats in Congress to lead. He created a Deficit Reduction Commission and ignored its bipartisan recommendations, which led directly to a Congressional stalemate over our debt ceiling. Obama also blew off Rep. Paul Ryan’s good faith effort to address skyrocketing Medicare costs and tried to make it an election issue.
It might be a big mystery to the president and his advisers why business spurns their advances. But it isn’t a mystery to anyone in business. Businesses are not hiring and this anti-business government is at least partially responsible.
Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times bestselling book, “The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.”
- GE CEO sours on Obama despite green energy subsidies (junkscience.com)
- White House Turns Over 432 Pages of Documents in Solyndra Case (blippitt.com)