It seems like a rare occurrence when I actually sit down and write up a true entry to this blog. Most of what I offer is what those more eloquent, or more informed, have put out there. Education is power, and it’s certainly not coming from government textbooks. On with the show.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters … the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
– Rule by fear or rule by law? (San Francisco Chronicle’s Open Forum)
It’s Endgame all right. It just occurred to me, with what I am seeing and reading regarding the new definition of “terrorist” and such, that perhaps these tea party protests are playing right into their hands. Just a thought.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is allegedly extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.
A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
“The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution.”
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes too far.
“Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass.”
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.
“The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.”
“We expect a lot of flak over this,” the classified memo continues. “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control.”
The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.
– Military to swear oath to Obama, not Constitution? (Hal Turner Show)
*snort* Looking for Attention or control? How about looking for you to uphold the true nature of this nation? I’m with Justmytruth on this one:
The difference in this oath, while small, is so significant that it scares the hell out of me. By doing this the military swears allegiance to Obama, not to the Constitution or the united States and her people which it has always defended. This would give Obama the ability to order the military personnel to turn their firepower against the American People! Never, in the history of this country, has that happened. The very reason the oath was written as it was is to ensure that tyrants CANNOT usurp the military! That Obama seeks this kind of power while saying it is for peaceful means is just like Hitler having the military in Germany swear allegiance to him and then marching Jewish-Germans off to the interment camps. Does anyone see what is happening here? Am I all alone in my fear for my country?
– Are You A Terrorist? (Justmytruth’s Weblog)
In response to Justmytruth’s titled question: “Are you a terrorist?”, I offer what Granny Miller has to say about the matter, which is to say, “A domestic terrorist lives here.“