Obama’s Plan to Use Military Against Americans

According to an article in the Washington Times, Obama now has a plan to use the U.S. military to put down any rioting or other civil unrest in the United States.

“According to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which followed Reconstruction after the Civil War, it is unlawful and prohibited for the President to order or use military forces within the United States.”

“Of course, over the years numerous exceptions and provisions have been carved out, leaving several loopholes open that can now be exploited.”

“These exceptions and loopholes typically refer to using military forces to restore order after major natural disasters or to quell an insurrection, or other similar type emergency.  However, there is no concrete definition of what exactly constitutes a ‘national emergency‘, and it is open to interpretation by the President.”

In Sal Alynsky’s book: “Rules for Radicals”, dedicated to the first radical “Lucifer”, one of his rules is “never let a crisis go to waste.” I have suspected for some time now that Obama is endeavoring to create a crisis so he can put some of us down with his military might.

In my honest opinion, he doesn’t want to face the 2016 election so he will probably create a crisis and use that to stay in power by using the following Directive to keep there from being an election, either this year or 2016. I’m not exactly sure what he has planned for the next two years but you can bet it will be a doozy. 

Back to the 'Washington Times" article:

Directive No. 3025.18, entitled “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” provides the President and US Commanders of military forces with broad authority during emergencies. 

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states. 

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

 The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.” 

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

The Directive is clearly aimed at engaging civilians in times of unrest.  An unnamed official at the White House even admitted that Obama considered using the authority from this Directive during the standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada earlier this year, but wisely decided against it. 

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counter narcotics efforts. 

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department. 

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

That makes it sound like almost every Bureaucratic Department in Washington has been armed for a war with us private citizens. Scarey, isn't it?

Trey Gowdy lead the charge in passing a bill that directs Obama to follow the laws – clearing the House by a 233 to 181 vote. I personally would like to know who the 181 who voted against the bill were. 

But with his phone and pen and executive order ability, WILL HE? I personally cannot keep up with all his shenanigans spending 12 hours a day on my computer reading everything I can find. I read in someone’s post recently that he has written more executive orders than all other presidents combined. I was unable to “fact check” it but I suspect it is true.

One of Obama’s claims is that he taught Constitutional Law for 10 years so I guess he is pretty well up to date on all the loopholes he can slip through.

It’s no secret that they (primarily the Democrats) are trying to do away with the First and Second Amendments; politically correct speech and no armed citizens to to deal with would be a great help in Obama‘s efforts to “Fundamentally Change“ the United States. 

Let me quote the Declaration of Independence on this: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." 

And this quote from President John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights several times and find them to be well written documents, easily understood with exception to Article One, Section Nine, Paragraph Three.

The First and Second Amendments are so clearly written, any child at junior high school level should be able to understand them but in Article One, Section Nine, Paragraph Three there is a short but very important sentence which states: “No bill of attainder or ex post facto bill shall be past.” With a good dictionary you will find attainder means “confiscation of property or rights”. Ex post facto means “applied retroactively: applying to events that have already occurred as well as to subsequent events.”

In other words if you own property as in a home, land, automobile and a weapon, they are property, and they cannot be taken away from you at anytime from past into the future. That would mean to any thinking person that the First and Second Amendment cannot be taken away either except by Constitutional Amendment which requires two-thirds of the House and Senate to pass and then three-fourths of the states to ratify.

This one short sentence in the Constitution guarantees your rights from when they began in 1789 until the United States ceases to exist.

Let me finish up with some quotes that come to mind:

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”—Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." —Thomas Jefferson 

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — Justice Louis D. Brandeis — dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)

I do believe I have said enough for one day. 

This is My Political Diatribe For Today

FOREWORD

Every time I hear politicians talk about reducing government spending, the next word I hear is “entitlements”, Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is the only retirement many of our nation’s lower income citizens have and since people are living longer and healthier lives, politicians think that changing the age of eligibility to 70 is the right way to solve the problem. Rising the retirement age to 70 will cause many to have less than cat food to eat. The fact that people are living longer and healthier does not mean they will be able to keep a job or find another job if replaced by a younger person. There may be a few who have jobs past age 65 but I doubt if many of them are in the lower income bracket. This sounds more like a “from the bottom up” effort in finding places to cut back government spending. 

I have been thinking more about a “from the top down” spending cut. We pay our congressional representatives and senators $174,000 each per year. The majority and minority leaders are paid $193,400 and the speaker of the house, $223,500. That is just their salaries. They also have an allowance. In 2008, the most recent year I could find, they received allowances ranging from $1,299,292 to $1,637,766 for office space, secretaries and aides, and mail. Consider that we have 100 senators and 435 congressional representatives plus their expense accounts; we are looking at roughly another $500 million. Then there is those travel allowances. The congressional travel budget is combined into a larger budget involving the State Department and Military travel. It is never made public. When a representative travels, he can pocket as much as $3,000 per trip in per diem (that is latin for by day) for food and lodging and due to an accounting system that does not require itemization nor demand return of unused cash. Some lawmakers can pocket up to $3,000 a trip in cash.

However, all this generosity did not start with this year's crop. Benefits payments for some 400 retired members of Congress, who receive an average benefit of $45,000 a year, cost taxpayers about $20 million annually, says the National Tax Payers Foundation. Future costs depend on the turnover rate: The more that leave before they reach the five-year vesting threshold, the lower the annual payouts required. Over time, congressional pensions are expected to accumulate more modestly as fewer members stay on beyond six to 12 years, according to the NTUF.

PART I 

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR (that is Franklin Delano Roosevelt to you uninformed about who the presidents were), on August 14, 1935. SSI withholdings were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones too) did not know this. It is easy to check out, if you do not believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what is what and it does not matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts. Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

(1.) That participation in the Program would be voluntary. It is no longer voluntary.

(2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program; now they have to pay 7.65% on the first $90,000. 

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. They are no longer tax deductible.

(4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program. However, under president Lyndon Baines Johnson, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.

( 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under president Bill Clinton & vice president Al Gore, up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed, Since many have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month—then finding that participants are getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’. You may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ vote as President of the Senate as Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to illegal immigrants?

A: MY FAVORITE: That is right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Illegal immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! In addition, the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are very sure of what is not so. Nevertheless, it is worth a try. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

PART II

I have long been angered by politicians and news media calling Social Security and Medicaid entitlements as though it is a FREE GIFT from the government. Since 1937, American citizens have been involuntarily paying a percentage of their income, now up to 7%, matched by their employer, into a fund set up to provide for people who manage to live past the age of 65 years, or in some cases younger. They are to the point of insolvency and are considering raising the age. Yet, politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a democrat, will stand and tell lies to mislead taxpaying citizens. Following are some of Reid’s mis-speakings I found recently in a news blog.

In my previous, First History Lesson on Social Security, I presented some harsh evidence and truth on the matter. Read the following lies the democratic Majority Leader had to say about the matter. Do you think he is lying again?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada on disputed warnings that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy, called those assertions an “outright lie.” In addition, he says the huge federal entitlement program has not added “one penny” to the federal deficit.

Both of Reid’s claims are misleading. Reid made the comments at a “Back off Social Security” rally at the Capitol. Reid was joined by other Senate Democrats and liberal activists, who accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize Social Security. Democrats have used similar tactics in the past to scare senior citizens, who vote in large numbers.

“Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt or the deficit ever in its 75 years,” Reid said at the event.

The claim is false. According to the actuaries for Social Security and Medicare, the Social Security program ran a deficit of approximately $41 billion, excluding interest on the bonds in the Social Security trust fund. Those bonds, which are a special type of Treasury bond, are placed in the trust funds in place of the cash surpluses the government has taken in from payroll taxes.

Because there is no cash in the Social Security trust funds, any deficits the program runs, including the 2010 deficit—and those projected into the future—must be repaid from current tax revenue.

Since the federal government was already running a deficit in 2010, and ran one in 2009, the money required to pay the Social Security deficit would have had to be borrowed, meaning it was added to the deficit and the national debt, contrary to Senator Reid’s claim.

Reid also rejected warnings that Social Security is going bankrupt, saying that the New Deal-era entitlement program was in sound fiscal shape.

“We hear pundits and politicians take the bait that’s been thrown to them by these Republicans over the last few decades,” Reid said. “You throw it to them, and they grab it. They grab it, and they claim Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. It’s not just an exaggeration that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy—it is an outright lie.”

This statement is misleading. According to the Social Security actuaries, the program will no longer be able to pay out full benefits beginning in 2037, at which time it will have exhausted both its dedicated tax revenue and the value of the interest from the government bonds in its trust funds.

“The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037,” the actuary reported in August 2010.

What this means is that Social Security will begin using income tax revenue to make up the difference as it runs continual deficits from now until 2037. In 2037, the program will have completely exhausted the Treasury bonds in its trust funds meaning it will not be able to take any more extra tax revenue. At that point, the income from the program’s dedicated payroll taxes will only be able to pay approximately 75 percent of promised benefits.

This statement is misleading because if Social Security were a private-sector pension, the federal government itself would consider it insolvent or bankrupt.

According to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation—the federal entity that manages and bails out bankrupt or defunct pension plans—a pension must be taken over if it is insolvent and does not have enough money to pay out current benefits, or if it will go bankrupt.

“PBGC must terminate a plan if assets are unavailable to pay benefits currently due,” the agency states on its website.

In other words, Social Security is heading towards a level of insolvency that the federal government itself considers to be of such danger to its beneficiaries that—were it a private pension—the government would step in, take it over, and bail it out.

NOTE: When FDR established SSI (Social Security Insurance) in 1937 it was understood by most, that it would be a separate fund managed by the government and it would not be dipped into to pay for America’s overspending appetite. In other words, it would be used only for the purpose it was intended.

HAS IT? There has been more abuse and vote buying with this fund that can be understood or even completely discovered by the average American. People drawing disability who are not disabled, illegal immigrants drawing SSI (and welfare/food stamps) who did not pay into it nor even deserve it. If the SSI funds had been used as intended . . . as promised years ago . . . there would still be plenty of money go to around.

If the federal government really wants to cut the budget, they should look in their own back yard. Their high salaries and office budgets, their travel allowances and other perks they receive from lobbyists. In addition, billions in foreign aide to our so-called Allies.