Monday, April 2, 2012

Obama's "Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities"; Judge says a ban on firearms outside of homes during an emergency violates the 2nd Amendment; Holder says reverse discrimination "against his people" has only just begun; "Today Show" edited Zimmerman's 911 call; Photos of Zimmerman and Martin shaped public opinion; Sharpton's planned economic sanctions; "We want arrest - shot in the chest"; Deaths in Chicago ignored; Chief Justice says states have been compromising thier sovereignty; Why are conservatives conservative?; Obama says government spending is what made America great; Liberalism stays away from ballot box, inserts itself into courts

Trevor Loudon writes: You may not have heard of PSD-10 because it has received no significant coverage from the major media. Yet, President Obama issued “Presidential Study Directive 10” last August 4, 2011, and posted it on the White House website:  It amounts to a new and potentially far-reaching exercise of American military power cloaked in humanitarian language and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
Under this new “Obama doctrine,” U.S. troops can be deployed to arrest or even terminate individuals wanted by the International Criminal Court, which is based on a treaty that has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and isn’t even up for Senate consideration.
This “Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities,” another name for PSD-10, declares that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” This is at sharp variance with the traditional role of the U.S. military—self-defense and protection of the homeland. Toward this end, an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” is being formed to develop and implement this new Obama doctrine. However, it is apparent that the doctrine is already going forward.
Members of the public haven’t heard of PSD-10, but they may have heard of a decision Obama made on October 14, 2011, when he informed Congress that he had authorized “a small number of combat equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield.”
World Net Daily reports: A federal judge has struck down a North Carolina provision that authorizes a ban on firearms and ammunition outside homes during “a declared emergency,” determining that violates the Second Amendment.
Word on the decision comes from Second Amendment Foundation, which has been taking on local and state restrictions ever since the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Americans, under the Constitution, have the right to keep and bear arms.
WND reported earlier when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a “declared snow emergency.”

North Carolina is among the states that allowed such actions. Under its statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which “public-safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property” – such as during a record snowfall – “it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon.”
In other words, when police can’t get through on the roads, the citizens can’t take guns off their own property.
American Thinker writes: Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required.  He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun: "Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices," Holder said.  "The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] ... When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?"
Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation's laws, referred to blacks as "my people."  Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership.  If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister.  Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified -- on the basis of race -- with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, "Channon Christian looks like my daughters."
In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting "benefits to which they are entitled."  The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government.  The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership.  Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.
This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists.  Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of "callousness or neglect by the 'white power structure'" [2].  Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.Read more:
Breitbart reports: NBC told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple Saturday that it would investigate an incident in which the "Today" show used an abridged recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call before he killed Trayvon Martin. The version used by NBC emphasized race as a factor in the incident.
Big Journalism first reported on the online version of the MSNBC controversy 3 days ago and followed up with another report yesterday, March 30th on NBC's aired segment. As the Hollywood Reporter states, Fox News, led by host Sean Hannity, along with Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, have also been challenging NBC on what appears to be an outrageous use of an editing technique to make the 911 call seem damning of Zimmerman, as well as divisive and inflammatory along racial lines.
After playing both versions, Hannity said: “They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?”
“This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News,” answers Bozell, who runs a conservative watchdog group called the Media Research Center.
“When you hear him say, ‘he looks black,’ anyone watching that believes that there are racial overtones to what this man did,” Bozell says. “How could you not believe that? It goes with the narrative of the profiling. The only problem is, they edited out the dispatcher asking him, ‘what does he look like?’”
Pat Dollard writes:  When he was shot, Trayvon Martin was not the baby-faced boy in the photo that has been on front pages across the country. And George Zimmerman wasn’t the beefy-looking figure in the widely published mugshot. Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial public perceptions of the deadly shooting.

Orlando Sentinel reports: The Rev. Al Sharpton came to a podium outside Sanford Police Department headquarters amid raucous cheers from many of the roughly 1,000 participants. But he revealed few details about a plan he unveiled Friday for economic sanctions to force authorities to arrest Zimmerman.
Instead, he talked generally about sanctions against corporations that support and fund stand-your-ground laws, but didn't name specific entities or outline strategies.  "We want an arrest. Shot in the chest," marchers said Saturday en route to Sanford Police Department headquarters. "I am Trayvon Martin."

Marathon Pundit writes: Yesterday Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) donned a hoodie as he spoke on the floor of Congress yesterday, to draw attention to the Trayvon Martin case. But about an hour ago inside a store six people were shot on the 1400 block of West 79th Street on Chicago's South Side-which is in Rush's district.
One of the victims is dead. This section of the South Side is predominantly African-American.
Will Rush, a former Black Panther, express outrage over this tragedy?


The New American writes: Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday what has long been known but seldom spoken. During the third and final day of Supreme Court hearings on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is unconstitutional, Roberts said  states have been compromising their sovereignty for decades through increased reliance on the federal government for money and accompanying directions on the governance of state affairs. 
"It seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the federal government has done," the chief justice said during Wednesday's nearly three hours of hearings on the controversial health insurance law.
Miller-McCune writes: According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. (Another 35 percent are self-identified moderates.)-
One possible explanation is that some “conservatives” wear the label quite loosely. Another points to the long-established link between right-wing attitudes and a tendency to perceive the world as threatening. In an era where the latest scare is constantly being hyped on television and the Internet, it stands to reason that conservatism would dominate.
Newly published research proposes a somewhat different, and quite provocative, answer.
A research team led by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman argues that conservatism — which the researchers identify as “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo” — may be our default ideology. If we don’t have the time or energy to give a matter sufficient thought, we tend to accept the conservative argument.
We do not assert that conservatives fail to engage in effortful, deliberate thought,” they insist. “We find that when effortful thought is disengaged, the first step people take tends to be in a conservative direction.”
Conservative Byte reports: President Obama attacked Republicans for their desire to cut the government spending that “made this country great,”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------American Thinker opines: One of the greatest sleights of hand in political history has been the cultural coup liberalism has waged on American life since the 1960's, a takeover accomplished with few votes actually cast in its favor. How does a group that numbers a mere 20% of the American population (give or take) according to Gallup, foist its ideas on an American public that largely rejects its them?
The strategy is quite simple. First, stay away from the ballot box as much as possible. Liberalism identified as such is usually rejected when it is flushed out into the open and clearly seen.
This may not be the end of liberalism's march through American culture. But it may be the end of its using the Supreme Court as its greatest and most unaccountable tool. Liberalism has now officially overplayed its hand and it is likely to pay a heavy price in the days ahead. The worst possible scenario for the movement is emerging, namely that liberalism will be seen as exactly what it is, an extreme minority view in both American jurisprudence and in the culture at large, one worthy of widespread repudiation.

1 comment:

  1. Great and helpful information, thank you !
    Obama is EVIL !!!