Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Obama Positions Himself for a Power Grab

President BO (that amateur president) is positioning himself for a very despotic power grab before the next election(s). Under his "leadership," the Pentagon has issued a directive on military support to civilian authorities.

The directive  contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

83 comments:

Duckys here said...

Come on, Joe, all they'll do is whack some dirty hippies.
You were down with that when they broke up #OWS, weren't you?

Then they'll go after those crazy Arabs and all that sharia law.

What can go wrong?

Xavier Onassis said...

Here is the actual Directive No. 3025.18, Defense Support of Civil Authorities:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the scary parts.

I read the directive and there is absolutely nothing in it that comes close to resembling the crap in the Fox News article.

Plus, people are getting their panties in a twist today about a directive that was put in force three and a half years ago???

Joe said...

XO: Guess you didn't read 1-f and 4-i, right?

Maybe you were educated in public school and can't read what it actually says.

You will not possibly see the danger of it until after it has been implemented, then it will be too late for you. Even then you will find a way to blame the situation on GW Bush

"FEDERAL MILITARY FORCES shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT...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..."

The president gets to decide...that's power. "Civil disturbances"...that's like assembly. "FEDERAL MILITARY FORCES"...that' the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, etc.

NOT GOOD!

Duckys here said...

Joe, does this mean he's going to suspend elections and install himself as President for Life?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Remember, this is the president who illegally traded five terrorists who will be soon back in action, for a traitor who hates the U.S. and loves the Taliban. And we wonder why Islam sees the U.S. as wimps.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, why was this illegal?

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, should we have left a soldier, who has a presumption of innocence, over there if we had a way to get him back?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

I guess you don't read the papers? Obama did not make the appropriate notice to Congress, and claimed he didn't need to do so due to exigent circumstances. Yeah, it was really urgent to make that trade, wasn't it? Everything I read says he should have been left there to rot. Letting 5 terrorist go who will be at us again shortly (as if they will stay in Qatar for a year?) is foolish. Negotiating with terrorists is foolish. But Obama's policies are full of foolish actions.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

The evidence shows no "presumption of innocence." It shows he deserted intentionally, appears to have collaborated, has made anti-American statements, etc.

But if you want to take him as innocent, fine. Let the five freed terrorists come knocking on your door.

Joe said...

DM: "... if we had a way to get him back?"

Any way? Is there a "way" line you would draw? Is that line before or after releasing 5 terrorists?

So you're saying Obama DID notify Congress of his pending action? Because that's what the law requires.

Is "we didn't have time" an excuse for not following the law?

"Grandma has supper on and we need to get there now, Mr. Officer. That's why we were speeding. So you see, it was not convenient for us to follow the law."

Joe said...

Ducky: "...he's going to suspend elections and install himself as President for Life?"

Remember, you heard it here first.

Are you going to be the one to stop him?

Dave Miller said...

Of course I am not saying Obama notified Congress. The law to which you Joe, and Glenn are referencing, was signed by Pres Obama with a signing statement, excluding the Presidency from that requirement. As I am sure you are aware, Pres Bush, expanded the use of signing statements under the Power of the Unitary Executive Doctrine. That doctrine was vastly expanded under the Bush Admin as they understood the term, Commander in Chief.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Nice selective editing. The complete text of 4i is as follows:

"i. Federal military commanders are provided EMERGENCY AUTHORITY under this
Directive. Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically
authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d))
or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j))
and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))). 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 because:

(1) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction
of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,

(2) When duly constituted Federal, State, or 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."

Not only does the complete text include legal controls that you chose to ignore (because they didn't agree with your paranoid point of view), but the Directive also references other legal precedents and restrictions that would be applicable:

(c) DoD Directive 5525.5, “DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials,”
January 15, 1986

(d) Sections 375, 382, 2564, 9442, and Chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code

(j) DoD Directive 3025.12, “Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances (MACDIS),”
February 4, 1994

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, get real... We've negotiated with terrorists for years, especially in regards to the return of hostages and POWS...

Why the disgust now?

Xavier Onassis said...

Under Ronald Reagan, Ollie North sold weapons to the same Iranian terrorists who overran our embassy, took 52 members of our State Department hostage and held them for 444 days.

This what Reagan and Ollie North sold to the Iranians:

August 20, 1985 – 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
September 14, 1985 – 408 more TOWs
November 24, 1985 – 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
February 17, 1986 – 500 TOWs
February 27, 1986 – 500 TOWs
May 24, 1986 – 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
August 4, 1986 – More Hawk spares
October 28, 1986 – 500 TOWs

Republicans still think Reagan was a great president and consider Ollie North to be a patriot.

Hypocrites.

Lisa said...

Remember the outrage over warrantless wiretapping on calls coming and going to the ME?
Obama does it to all Americans and the silence was deafening.
Some ears have walls.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The disgust is because he did the trade for a traitor, a person who should have been left there.

Notice how liberals always resort to the "tu quoque" logic fallacy instead of addressing the current tyrant in the Oval Office?

Lisa said...

O said if he gets 100,000 signatures on a petition he will see about getting our soldier out of a Mexican prison where he is being abused.
He needs a petition for that but can circumvent congress to trade 5 dangerous terrorists for a soldier who voluntarily walked off?
Sounds despotic to me.
I never saw so much unconditional love for a president. It borders on creepy

Duckys here said...

Glenn, he hasn't been tried and to do that he has to be here.

Got you in a Catch - 22?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "The evidence shows no "presumption of innocence." It shows he deserted intentionally, appears to have collaborated, has made anti-American statements, etc."

You really have no idea how the legal system works, do you?

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Notice how liberals always resort to the "tu quoque" logic fallacy instead of addressing the current tyrant in the Oval Office?"

Notice how conservatives always try to duck behind rhetorical dodges instead of facing the fact that their "moral outrage" and "righteous indignation" is hypocritical to its rotten core.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - One last thing...you might want to crack open a dictionary and look up the word "tyrant", because you are using it wrong.

President Obama is not a tyrant, he is the President of the United States, elected by a majority of the American people, not just once, but twice.

You need to pace yourself. You still have 2 more years of President Obama and then 8 years of President Clinton.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

No, it is not a catch-22. This is the most like reason he was brought home:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/04/why-are-we-releasing-terrorists-who-kill-girls-because-they-go-to-school/

We lost six good men searching for him. Wartime justice is summarily executing him as a traitor.

You love affair for everything Obama is disgusting

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Stuck in a cycle of scandals, President Obama was ready to do anything to change the conversation -- including, we now know, unleashing five of the world's most deadly terrorists on the rest of society. Four days into the administration's large-scale distraction, the White House is probably wishing it were still answering questions about the VA. So far, the "feel good" story of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release from the Taliban doesn't feel good to anyone reading the steady drip of news about the five-year Taliban captive -- and the steep price Americans paid to return him.

Bergdahl's return has yet to trigger positive feelings from the men he served with, many of whom feel the soldier willingly deserted his post and put "thousands of lives in jeopardy" in the month-long search to bring the soldier back to the unit he abandoned (a crime punishable by death, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice). At least six Americans were killed in the hunt for Bergdahl, an Afghan sympathizer who reportedly premeditated his disappearance. That detail is also corroborated by Jake Tapper's CNN report this morning, claiming that several troops who served with Bergdahl were asked to sign nondisclosure agreements. Emails allegedly sent to his parents before his 2009 capture paint a less than flattering image of the Sergeant so many sacrificed to save. "I'm ashamed to be an American... [T]he title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools. The horror that is America is disgusting."


Part one

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


While details of Bowe's capture and defection are still murky, the facts about his release are not. In one of the worst instances of lawlessness yet, President Obama negotiated Bergdahl's release without notifying Congress -- a fact not lost on even the most liberal of news outlets. MSNBC and CNN both took a break from playing defense for the White House to put administration officials in the hot seat. To Press Secretary Jay Carney, CNN's Joe Johns asked if on this issue the President thinks "he's above the law?" "Absolutely not," Carney replied.

Jeffrey Toobin piled on in a segment with a disbelieving Wolf Blitzer. "I think he clearly broke the law," the CNN contributor said. "The law says 30-days notice... The law is on the books, and he didn't follow it." So stunned was Blitzer that he said, "You realize, of course, you're accusing the President of the United States of breaking the law." As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will tell you, this isn't exactly a first for the administration (more like a 77th).

Meanwhile, the people most outraged by the prisoner swap are the leaders Obama circumvented: Congress. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), both ranking members of their respective Armed Services Committees, were furious at the administration's latest crime. "Our joy at Sergeant Berghdal's release is tempered by the fact that President Obama chose to ignore the law, not to mention sound policy, to achieve it." Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was equally frustrated. "We have released five very dangerous individuals who will eventually find their way back into the battlefield. I think it sets very dangerous precedent." Just last year, Jay Carney was insistent that no decisions about Bergdahl would be made "without consulting with Congress." Now, six U.S. deaths and five free terrorists later, this exchange has turned out to be another adventure in Executive lawlessness.

And, let's not forget the horrifying double standard it represents. While the U.S. trades masterminds of terror for a man who "is a deserter," the same government is deserting two American babies yearning to breathe free in a deadly prison in Khartoum, Sudan. Where are the President's priorities? The conditions at Guantanamo Bay were like a five-star hotel compared to what Meriam Ibrahim is shackled in for her Christian faith. And what is the State Department's response to the pleas of this helpless American family? "We don't have time."

The same White House that insists it won't leave Americans behind has done exactly that in Benghazi, Mexico, Sudan, and Iran, where Pastor Saeed Abedini has been imprisoned for two years. But then, the President also took an oath not to leave the law behind -- and we all see how that turned out.

Tony Perkins' Washington Update.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Yes X.O., I understand the legal system, but apparently your boyfriend Obama doesn't.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Notice how conservatives always try to duck behind rhetorical dodges instead of facing the fact that their "moral outrage" and "righteous indignation" is hypocritical to its rotten core

Wrong. None of us had blogs when previous presidents were around, and most of us condemn bad actions of ANY and EVERY president. But none of those others are in office now, are they?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And I know what the word "Tyrant" means, and it fits Obamanation to a T

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The man is guilty and should not have been "freed" with the trade of five dangerous terrorists. PERIOD.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2014/06/04/exclusive-the-story-you-havent-yet-heard-about-bowe-bergdahls-desertion-n1847173/page/full

Lisa said...

O was waiting for the applause that never came. Sometimes I wonder if even won either election legitimately. We will never know though.
Total unknown makes a speech at the DNC and then weasles into the WH. And yes I mean weasle because his actions have shown him to be just that and so are his die hard foot kissing followers who give excuse after excuse for him. This kind of behavior by citizens is usually seen in more despotic countries for fear of Dear Leader yet they do it for unconditional love if Dear Leader and they call those who point it out crazy? Another despotic tactic.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

This is what will probably happen now that Obama has made such a lawless deal:

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryprovost/2014/06/04/swapping-terrorists-for-deserters-a-bad-idea-with-grave-consequences-n1847217/page/full

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The released prisoners are heroes:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/72133/nauseating-video-bergdahl-taliban-5-living-in-luxury-to-heroes-welcome-w-no-surveillance/

We know darned well they will be active against the U.S. very soon

Dave Miller said...

Where to start today...

Lisa, there is no unconditional love for Obama. If you paid attention, you would see that XO, Ducky, Shaw and myself all have reservations about Obama and are not all in, or totally content with him.

Any other interpretation of our views, that are widely visible online, is not only inaccurate, but dishonest.

Regarding the missing Marine, he screwed up and made an honest mistake... in another country. I know exactly where he crossed the border and everything I have heard about his crossing rings true.

It was an unfortunate accident. But he did break the law. Now he must wait for the Mexican system to work. it is painful to see, but what options are there for any US President?

It seems as if you and other right leaning hawks are expecting a rescue mission, What would that do to relations with one of our biggest partners, right on our border?

Could you propose a solution apart from diplomatic channels, which I'm pretty sure Obama is using?

Finally, you stated "O said if he gets 100,000 signatures on a petition he will see about getting our soldier out of a Mexican prison where he is being abused."

How do you know this? Can you provide a link that states either of the two positions you posit in this statement?

If you can't, again, it is being dishonest. It may be your opinion, but stating it as fact, is a lie.

We'll all await your links. But we know that proof ad evidence is not your strong suit.

Dave Miller said...

Lisa, yes the NSA is snooping on millions of calls everyday.

Can you tell us where the legal justification for that came from and when it started? Hint... it is pre Obama...

I agree it is wrongheaded, but if you are going to place blame, why not be accurate?

Dave Miller said...

Glenn...

Like Lisa, you've got a lot on the plate today.

1. We brought the guy home because we do not leave soldiers behind during wartime if at all possible. And then, if the evidence supports a case, they face justice here, or on a base in the field. The military clearly felt it would be best to bring him home.

Tell me, why does this soldier not deserve a day in court to answer his critics? Maybe he is guilty, but our system is one of presumed innocence until proven guilty, not Napoleonic Law which presumes guilt first.

2. Regarding your supposed double standard, where is it? it is not the president job to secure Christian missionaries in other countries. More so when they go into areas of danger. That's the work of Jesus. I serve abroad in some pretty rough areas. I go as a Christian, trusting in God for my life and my salvation. I expect nothing from the US government once I cross the border.

The majority of missionaries with whom i dialogue, feel the same way. We are called by god and our trust and confidence is in him, not our government.

I dare say that if the people of whom you speak were soldiers lost in war, we'd be working hard to get them back. But they aren't.

3. As for our Marine in Mexico, since you, Lisa and Tony Perkins want action, what should we do? Any suggestions?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

We shouldn't leave our troops behind. BUT, this traitor was there voluntarily and has caused the deaths of soldiers who had to look for him. The evidence against him is great. Getting him back for trial is one thing, but trading him for five terrorists is another. Did you even read the articles I linked to, especially the one about the precedent this set? And why couldn't Obamanation obey the law and notify Congress? There was no need for such immediacy.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As for the Marine in Mexico, their legal system is well known to be harassing and overly punitive towards Americans while they send all their people across the border. There apparently has been little to nothing done about getting him released into U.S. Custody. They would be clamoring if it was some liberal Hollywood tycoon.

As for Christians overseas, I don't think I've ever claimed the U.S. Should be involved.

What I want to know from all you liberals is this: Throughout the Vietnam War you libs protested all over the U.S. on college campuses, in Washington, etc, burned draft cards and were raising general hell about troops in Vietnam. But with troops in Afghanistan all we hear from you liberals is silence, even after Obamanataion promised to have them home YEARS ago!

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you're making some big assumptions about me.

Maybe because I don't fit into your tight little box with a definition only you can explain.

Regarding Christians, you posted a screed that made charges of a double standard. I assumed you would not have posted it if you did not agree with it.

I also noticed you offered no solution to the problem in Mexico. We have no idea what is being done behind the scenes.

I doubt you are going to be able to supply any evidence to back up your claim about the Mexican system being overly punitive towards Americans.

I'll wait for the links and proof. Without such, what you say is little more than opinion, unsupported by facts.

As for your final paragraph, what is your question? You made a statement after starting with what I want to know is this. What is the this you want to know?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

The Christian referred to is not because she's a missionary, or over seas for Christian activity. She is married to an American and she is to executed for her faith. Her child is automatically an American since the Father is an American. Our involvement isn't because she's a Christian, rather it's because she's an American being tried for not being a Muslim. That is a whole lot different than the government getting involve in protecting people because they are Christians.

The solution to the problem with Mexico is to quit pandering to them. The Demokrats pander to Mexico for the vote of Mexicans; which is why they pander to all the illegals.

Read the paper and watch the news once in a while and you would have the evidence of my charges against the Mexican legal system. I don't keep the articles or links just so some one like you can be satisfied with proof.

My final question was about liberals period. Why aren't liberals protesting against Obama's Afghan war the way they protested against the Vietnam War?

Duckys here said...

To answer your question, Glenn, from the beginning the Afghan war was perceived to be a just response to the 9/11 attack. You are correct that there was little protest.

Unlike Iraq which was perceived quite differently and caused massive protests. Did the protests have an effect. I don't think so but they were justified.

Have there been mass protests over Afghanistan and the drone attacks, no.
Has there been criticism of administration policy, yes, but as we saw with #OWS it is almost impossible to affect policy in the contemporary state.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, are you aware that the charges against the woman have been dropped.

They usually are. The threat is unfortunately used to keep people in line but rarely used because of the negative world opinion.

By the way, I'd defer to Dave on the question of Mexico.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,,

What a dodge you have about protesting the war.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

There was a report that the charges were dropped, and then the latest report said she was still facing the charges.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, maybe you don't use links because there is no proof that the Mexican legal system is any harsher towards Americans than anyone else.

It is arcane, odious, and difficult to understand, but hardly overly biased against their biggest trading partner to the north.

As for my reading preferences, Glenn, I live half my year there, every year. I read the papers in both English and Spanish. I sit with, know, and talk with politicians of all stripes in that country, as well as lawyers.

Sorry guy, you are just not credible on this front.

Unless of course, you can provide some backup to your charges.

Ducky nailed the views about Afghanistan. Along with most Americans, liberals generally supported that war. Iraq, not so much, and as it turns out, that was the correct response.

You seem upset about the liberals disgust with Vietnam. Our government lied to get us into that war, lied during the war, completely mismanaged the war and screwed up the exit from Saigon.

We did nothing right. Vietnam fell, and yet, it was not the big domino that the hawks predicted.

Maybe if Vietnam had attacked us, our country would have supported it.

Craig said...

Sorry to butt in, Dave. Besides all the things you said about Vietnam, there was this little thing called the draft. So yeah, young people took to the streets to protest their conscripted brothers being sent to the slaughter. 58,000 of them.

There were mass protests all over the world against Iraq. That war sucked the resources out of Afghanistan which is why we're still there today. BTW, Glenn,Obama didn't promise to get us out of Afghanistan YEARS ago. He promised to get us out of Iraq, and he did. He campaigned on Afghanistan being the "good" war.

Isn't it interesting that the Iraq war was prosecuted by G. A.W.O.L. Bush and 5 Deferment Dick. Chickenhawks gung ho for war as long as they don't have to fight them.

On a personal note. I burned my draft card in 1973. A drunken, meaningless gesture (the draft was over) performed in the upstairs bathroom of Uncle Sam's. A club in downtown Mpls that became First Avenue and featured in Prince's epic film, Purple Rain. I'm sure you've seen it Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Glenn, maybe you don't use links because there is no proof that the Mexican legal system is any harsher towards Americans than anyone else.

Um, no. Perhaps when I read articles about Mexico I don't keep the links because I never thought I'd need to show people the nonsense of Mexican laws and prejudice against Americans. Oh, those who are down there to spend lots of money are usually welcome.

You seem upset about the liberals disgust with Vietnam. Our government lied to get us into that war, lied during the war, completely mismanaged the war and screwed up the exit from Saigon.

You inferred something I never implied. My point is that the liberals complain about a war we had no business being in then, but not now. Afghanistan didn't attack us. ISLAM attacked us, and virtually every Islamic nation overseas is the enemy - not just Afghanistan. We are fighting an ideology, yet politicians, liberals and the media don't want to have that truth out.

We need to bring our troops home rather than having them stay over there accomplishing nothing and being cannon fodder. And OBAMA promised - PROMISED - that he would bring them home long, long ago. Now he's being stupid and telling the enemy when we are leaving. The man has no clue.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,

No, I didn't see it because I don't watch trash.

I wasn't for Bush's war either.

Joe said...

DM: "...Mexican legal system is any harsher towards Americans than anyone else."

What does that even mean? And if it did mean something, how does comparing Mexico to anyone else speak to the issue?

That is a typical liberal tactic. Someone did it so its OK for someone else to do it, too. Bush did it, so it's OK for Obama to do it.

Who took got us involved in Viet Nam, anyway? (Hint: It did not start with JFK.)

Answer: It started with Democrat Progressive, Woodrow Wilson's refusal to communicate with Ho Chi Minh. We became more and more involved under FDR, HST, and DDE. JFK merely escalated the conflict.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

LBJ is the one who really, really escalated the Vietnam War. And his socialist polices in the USA are still plaguing us today.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "ISLAM attacked us, and virtually every Islamic nation overseas is the enemy - not just Afghanistan. We are fighting an ideology, yet politicians, liberals and the media don't want to have that truth out."

What a load of complete paranoid nonsense.

We weren't attacked by a religion. We were attacked by criminals.

Those criminals didn't attack us for religious reasons, they attacked us for political reasons.

I know your twisted and demented world view believes that everything that happens in the world is some sort of epic battle between the GOOD but beleagered, pursecuted Christian (as defined by you and you alone) minority, and the EVIL Islamic hordes out to behead all the Christian men and rape all the Christian women.

But that just ain't so, bub. You live in a fantasy world.

The same fantasy world that said Obama was out to take everybody's guns away from them.

Do you still have your guns Glenn? It's been 6 years. Don't you think if he wanted them he'd have them by now?

I'm afraid someday we're going to see you on the news on top of some clock tower or in a book depository opening fire on anyone with dark skin while yelling "CLOWARD-PIVEN! APOSTASY! HERETICS! SOCIALISTS!"

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

You again display your total ignorance of Islam. It isn't just a religion - it is a religious, social-political system which has a historical teaching of world conquest.

I know your twisted and demented world view believes that everything that happens in the world is some sort of epic battle between the GOOD but beleagered, pursecuted Christian (as defined by you and you alone) minority, and the EVIL Islamic hordes out to behead all the Christian men and rape all the Christian women.

You just proved yourself a liar, because that is not what I believe.

The only reason Obama doesn't have our guns yet is the 2nd Amendment. But the administration is making it more and more difficult to get ammunition - a back door way of making guns useless.

Dave Miller said...

Joe wrote "DM: "...Mexican legal system is any harsher towards Americans than anyone else."

What does that even mean? And if it did mean something, how does comparing Mexico to anyone else speak to the issue?

That is a typical liberal tactic. Someone did it so its OK for someone else to do it, too. Bush did it, so it's OK for Obama to do it."


Maybe Joe you should read Glenn's statements. He asserted this in his comments. I was simply responding, not deflecting and asking for his sources.

Glenn has little or no experience in Mexico, more than likely is unable to read Spanish and understand the nuances of the language, and is unable to offer any objective proof for his inaccurate claim.

If a lib did that, you would call him a bald faced liar.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, I totally agree that we need to bring our troops home, but the GOP has been no help in that.

Yes Obama promised to bring them home, but if Congress refuses to act, what options does he have on that front?

You probably know as well as I do that any attempts to cut defense spending, which includes troop withdrawals and drawdowns, will never be approved by Congress.

He was stupid to make that promise, but his intention was right. Too bad conservatives chose politics over withdrawal so they could score points.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you upped the ante this morning... do you have any evidence of widespread prejudice against Americans in Mexico?

I didn't think so...

Just because you read something on the 'net does not make it true. More than likely you are repeating unsourced opinion from uninformed writers.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

I may have no experience in Mexico, nor know Spanish, but that does't make me ignorant of the situation. I can read the daily newspapers (liberal, by the way) and read articles on the Internet from various sources. Just because I don't keep these sources to provide to someone weeks, months or years later, I am therefore lying in your book. Fine.

Although, we support a missionary in Mexico, and have regular, weekly communications via snail mail, and also e-mails and FB communications. This missionary also just arrived home last night for a 4-month furlough. We get a lot of reports about Mexico's legal system from this missionary, who is also probably lying in your estimation.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Seems congress is controlled by the Demokrats and the RINOS. That's the problem

Also, Defense spending SHOULDN'T be cut - that is a constitutional spending and it is the only way this country has been the most powerful in the world. Now we are weaker than Russia, China, and even ISLAM. This current administration is wimpy and has lost the respect of foreign nations.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, saying we are weaker than Islam is incredible. How do you measure the military might, of which I was speaking, of a religion, or a movement?

Regarding China or Russia, are you saying China and Russia have more military might than the US?

Regarding your missionary friend, I said nothing of the sort about him. I only wish him well.

But I do not accept people who, in their own words, have no experience in Mexico and don't speak the language, making outrageous statements and claims that they either cannot, or will not support.

If you want to talk Mexico, skip the talking points and get educated.



Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Islam - as a political, religious, social movement - owns numerous countries and, while they don't have our technology, they can defeat us as long as we ignore the truth about them. 9/11 was but a sample.

The missionary, by the way, is a "she."

As I stated, I read the papers. I read reports from those who have been to Mexico. Whether you want to accept what I said as factual is up to you; I couldn't care less.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and yes, Russian and China both have more military might than us. They don't scrimp on their military spending, and all the "made in China" goods we import have financed China's military.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Oh, and yes, Russian and China both have more military might than us. They don't scrimp on their military spending..."

As always, you are so incredibly wrong.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/top10-military-powers-of-the-world.html

USA

Annual Defense Budget: $690 billion

Military Personnel: 1,475,000

Planes & Helicopters: 22,000

Tanks & Armored Vehicles: 27,000

Naval Crafts: 225

Total Nuclear Warheads: 7,700

Active Nuclear Warheads: 2,150

Russia

Annual Defense Budget: $64 billion

Military Personnel: 1,200,000

Planes & Helicopters: 5,700

Tanks & Armored Vehicles: 13,500

Naval Crafts: 280

Total Nuclear Warheads: 8,500

Active Nuclear Warheads: 1,750


China

Annual Defense Budget: $130 billion

Military Personnel: 2,275,000

Planes & Helicopters: 2,800

Tanks & Armored Vehicles: 26,500

Naval Crafts: 725

Total Nuclear Warheads: 240

Active Nuclear Warheads: 180

You are batting 1000 G.E.C. Everything you have ever posted has been ridiculously wrong. I don't recall you ever posting anything that could be backed up by actual facts.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Thanks for the stats. But they don't prove reality.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, back to the subject of demonstrations.

You know, you have to pick your spots. Demonstrating for a quicker wind down in Afghanistan isn't going to speed it up.

Have you been following the minimum wage demonstrations (try a subscription to The Progressive). They have been having an effect.

Just saying.

Duckys here said...

@Glenn ---

Oh, and yes, Russian and China both have more military might than us. They don't scrimp on their military spending

-----
We do?

I wouldn't know where to begin.

Duckys here said...

Glenn, any Muslims in your 'hood?

I ask because there are in mine and I have never found them to be anything but friendly and polite.
Their children are very respectful.

What's your experience?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Minimum wage demonstrations are foolish - they are seeking nothing more than loss of jobs and loss of benefits. You should study a wee bit about the effect of minimum wage laws. Pure socialism. Oh, but you'd like that.

Intervention by politicians, judges, or others, in order to impose terms more favorable to one side - minimum wage laws or rent control laws, or example - reduces the overlapping set of mutually agreeable terms and, almost invariably, reduces the number of mutually acceptable transactions, as the party disfavored by the intervention makes fewer transactions subsequently. Countries with generous minimum wage laws, for example, often have higher unemployment rates and longer periods of unemployment than other countries, as employers offer fewer jobs to inexperienced and low-skilled workers, who are typically the least valued and lowest paid - and who are most often priced out of a job by minimum wage laws.

It is not uncommon in European countries with generous minimum wage laws, as well as other worker benefits that employers are mandated to pay for, to have inexperienced younger workers with unemployment rates of 20 percent or more. Employers are made slightly worse off by having to rearrange their businesses and perhaps pay for more machinery to replace the low-skilled workers whom it is no longer economic to hire. But those low-skilled, usually younger, workers may be made much worse off by not being able to get jobs as readily, losing both the wages they could earn otherwise and sustaining the perhaps greater loss of not acquiring the work experience that would lead to better jobs and higher pay.


Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.70

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If someone has a right, someone else has an obligation. But the proposed right to a “living wage,” for example, is not based on any obligation agreed to by an employer. On the contrary, this “right” is cited as a reason why government should force the employer to pay what third parties would like to be paid.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.157

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Crusaders for a “living wage” or to end “sweatshop labor” in the Third World, for example, may invest great amounts of time and energy promoting those goals but virtually none in scrutinizing the many studies done in countries around the world to discover the actual consequences of minimum wage laws in general or of “living wage” laws in particular. These consequences have included periods of unemployment, especially for the least skilled and least experienced segments of the population. Whether one agrees with or disputes these studies, the crucial question here is whether one bothers to read them at all.


Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.181

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Glenn, any Muslims in your 'hood?

I ask because there are in mine and I have never found them to be anything but friendly and polite.
Their children are very respectful.


The majority of the Muslims in the world are secular Muslims - they have no idea what their faith really teaches and are Muslims because they've been raised that way or claim said faith to avoid being killed. It's analogous to the majority of so-called Christians in the world who have no idea what their faith teaches but claim the faith because their parents raised them in the church.

Islam teaches to lie to your enemy that you are their friend until you are in a position of power. So your neighbors may be secular Muslims or fundamental Muslims pretending to be nice people.

Study Islam before making such silly comments.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - No one takes Thomas Sowell seriously.

And you're really going to double down on the military strength thing???

We spend over 10 times what Russia spends and 5 times what China spands, we have more of everything, our equipment is more advanced and our troops are more experienced and better trained and you seriously think they are stronger than us???

You're a lunatic.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

The only ones who don't take Sowell seriously are the ignorant people like you, and the liberals. Oh, wait, that was redundant.

While we may outspend other countries, our money is pretty worthless. And we spend it on things not really important for the military - and in fact degrading it. Like putting queers in the military, putting women in combat, paying for sex-change operations, and lots of other waste while we retire perfectly good aircraft (A-10s) and continue with social engineering. That's why other countries in the Islamic world, and China and Russia, see us as a joke.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "...in fact degrading it. Like putting queers in the military, putting women in combat, paying for sex-change operations, and lots of other waste while we retire perfectly good aircraft (A-10s) and continue with social engineering."

Wow. Just when I think you couldn't possibly get more bigoted, homophobic misogynist and ignorant you take it up another level.

I really hope you donate your body to science to that neurologists can study whatever it is bouncing around inside your skull that passes for a brain. Because it is COMPLETELY UNLIKE anything else on the planet.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Thanks for all the typical liberal ad hominems - names used to marginalize your opposition - arguments without arguments.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - I don't need to marginalize you. You do that all by yourself and you are doing a MAGNIFICENT job! Well done.

Duckys here said...

You can't argue against, Sowell, XO. It's revealed truth like the Old Testament.

Glenn, back to the idea of demonstrations. You originally asked why the left wasn't demonstrating against the Afghan war. I explained my opinion and pointed to an issue where there are effective demonstrations. Whether you agree with minimum wage increases or not the demonstrations have been effective.

What would you call a non secular Muslim? The Muslim women here cover their heads, dress modestly and observe Ramadan. I assume they also pray. Are they secular.
And please don't presume you know my neighborhood better than me. That's simply presumptuous.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

I told you what a secular Muslim is. You neighbor may or may not be one. You can't tell by how they dress.

I know the Islamic faith better than you do.

Duckys here said...

By the way, Glenn, taqiyya is an antiquated concept that originally allowed Shia to blaspheme in order to avoid persecution by Sunnis.

The idea doesn't exist in Sunni law.

Your knowledge of Islam is abysmal. But it does permit you to hate without cause. You should be ashamed.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you charging people with ad hominem attacks is hilarious. You have essentially admitted to calling people names, and as such, verbally abusing them.

If liberals are ignorant, as you've charged, there is no need ever to consider their arguments. Isn't that a good example of an ad hominem attack?

XO and Ducky... Glenn has indeed set up a world where there can only be truth and accuracy as he defines.

How else to explain that defense spending and military hardware stats, do not explain the reality of military might?

Glenn, do Christians or Jews own any countries? That is such a fascinating statement you made about Muslim ownership of countries. i won't bother asking for links.

As for your missionary friend, that's great she is a woman. Where does she work in Mexico? how long has she been serving there?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

I don't hate anyone. And my knowledge of Islam is just fine. You are deceived.

I hate false belief systems which cause untold numbers of murders, tortures, etc. in this realm, and eternal damnation in the next.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Speaking of one's ignorance isn't and ad hominem attack - it's an observation.

Glenn has indeed set up a world where there can only be truth and accuracy as he defines.

I define truth as that which conforms to reality. Do you have a different definition?

Islam isn't just a religion, and Islam as a political, social, religious movement owns many countries in that Islam is in complete control of them. There is no analogy to Christianity or any other faith.

My missionary friend has been there for six years, but I'm not going to give you the location because I wish to protect her identity. Oh, and she speaks Spanish fluently.

Military might, by the way, isn't measured by hardware - it's measured by leadership and the ability of the troops. Our leadership has virtually abdicated their responsibility to the troops, and the moral of the troops is not good -- yes, I know several young men who are currently serving and they are not a bit happy with the situation.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "I define truth as that which conforms to reality."

I have never encountered anyone anywhere who is more out of touch with reality than you. You willfully deny or ignore the overwhelming evidence that you are absolutely wrong and completely delusional on every single topic you have ever spoken about. You wouldn't recognize reality if it ran over you. Which, by the way, it totally is.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

I have never encountered anyone anywhere who is more out of touch with reality than you. You willfully deny or ignore the overwhelming evidence that you are absolutely wrong and completely delusional on every single topic you have ever spoken about. You wouldn't recognize reality if it ran over you. Which, by the way, it totally is.

You must be looking in the mirror when you say this.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort. How brilliant and insightful of you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

It was more "brilliant and insightful" than your stupid comment.