Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label american citizens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american citizens. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Could There Be A Day When Elections No Longer Are Conducted In The US?


LIMBAUGH: ELECTIONS ONLY THING STANDING IN LEFT'S WAY

'We just gotta find a way to get rid of 'em'


image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/01/Joe-Kovacs_avatar.jpg
author-image JOE KOVACS About | Email | Archive

rss feed Subscribe to feed

25
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/08/rush-limbaugh-white-shirt-pointing-600.jpg
Radio host Rush Limbaugh
Radio host Rush Limbaugh
With American politics heating up to the point of people being publicly intimidated and verbally attacked in the most vicious of terms, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh says there’s only one thing in the mind of leftists that is preventing them from gaining power.
And that thing is elections.
“It’s becoming clear to the left that the only thing standing in their way now is elections,” Limbaugh said Wednesday on his national broadcast.
“If they can find a way around that, then they don’t need to worry about appealing to people or getting out the vote or coming up with ways to convince people to vote. If you look at the way the radical left is going with this intolerant bullying and intimidation of anybody who disagrees with ’em, and the desire to stop any expression of any alternative view or way of thinking?
“That has a natural conclusion. If you’re gonna shut people up, if you’re gonna bully ’em, if you are a gonna shut ’em down, if you’re gonna make sure they cannot be heard say on a college campus or in a public protest – if you’re gonna make sure they can’t be heard in the classroom or on Facebook or Twitter – then how far is it down the road where you don’t want them to be heard at the ballot box?
Limbaugh said he did not think such a thing is happening now or would happen within a decade, but added, “Who knows?”
“I’m telling you that they’re gonna start thinking this way, because in their perverted worldview, the biggest problem they have right now is they’re losing elections. And their way of thinking is, ‘Well, we got a get rid of elections then.’ If elections are the problem, rather than figuring how to win ’em since that’s becoming problematic for ’em, ‘We just gotta find a way to get rid of ’em.’ Do not laugh. This may happen some years down the road long after we’re all gone, and I hope somebody remembers that this was uttered as a potential possibility way back when in the early 2000s.”More >

Limbaugh said he’s well aware some people will laugh at his analysis, but he’s standing by it:
“What do you think open borders, mass amnesty is about? If American citizens won’t vote for you, then make sure a bunch of people get into the country who will. Don’t doubt me on this, folks. These people have such an entitlement and quest for power that leaving it up to public opinion among a bunch of dolts and uninformed, uneducated hicks? That’s not gonna happen. That’s not gonna be allowed to happen for very long.”
Follow Joe Kovacs on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/07/limbaugh-only-1-thing-standing-in-lefts-way/#ywRIMplWTeIxOaV8.99
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Feds Are Getting Out Of Control. Arresting Americans, Well Inside The Country, Is Far From Normal.

FEDS ARREST FAMILY FOR 'REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS'

Border Patrol agents pull man from car in chilling video

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/07/cchumley_avatar.jpg
author-image CHERYL CHUMLEY About | Email | Archive
image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png
rss feed Subscribe to feed
A man, woman and their 4-year-old boy at an unidentified Inland Border Patrol checkpoint are ordered and pulled from their vehicle, questioned and taken into custody – all for the seeming offense of refusing to say where they were headed.
A video of the incident, recorded by the family’s dashboard camera, opens with the man and woman chit-chatting with their son in the back, later identified as 4, and pulling up to a border checkpoint. The man, who’s driving, has his window a third of the way down.
The uniformed agent says: “How are you, where are you going to today?”
And the man’s response: “I’m sorry, sir. I don’t have to answer that question.”
The exchange is repeated, and then the agent orders the man to park to the side.
“For what?” the man asks. “For what?”
The video, mounted on the car dashboard, shows the agent reaching into the man’s open window.
“Get your hands out of my car,” the man says. “Get your hands out of my car.”
The man then pushes the agent’s arm out the window, while the agent opens the door.
The man’s response?

“This is assault,” he says. “What is your reasonable suspicion?”
The agent then asks for the man’s citizenship, and he responds: “That I will [answer]. I’m a United States citizen.”
The agent asks the same question to the woman, who affirms she’s a U.S. citizen, too.
The agent then proceeds to ask a series of questions: “That your son in the back? You have anything illegal in the trunk? … Pop the trunk.”
The man tells the agent, “no, you cannot look,” and makes clear, “I do not consent to any searches or seizures.” He also asks the agent once more: “What is your reasonable suspicion?”
That’s when the agent tells him to put the car in park and “step out of the vehicle.”
The man once again asks for the agent’s “reasonable suspicion.” The video then shows the agent grabbing the man’s arm and wrestling him to remove him from vehicle, twisting his hand and arm in the process.
The man: “Dude what is your problem? I’ve got to unbuckle my seatbelt. … You’re being recorded.”
The agent says he’s aware of the camera and the man says, “Good. I’m going to sue the [expletive] out of you.”
The agent: “I’m not doing anything against policy.”
The camera then shows the man being pushed against the side of the vehicle, ordered to spread legs, while his son cries in the car. Another agent on the scene says to the man: “You brought this on yourself.”
The man’s escorted away while another agent gets in the driver’s seat of the car and tells the woman to keep her hands on the dashboard while he moves the vehicle to the side.
The woman at that point breaks down in tears and says, “My God, I’m coming back from a doctor’s appointment.”
And the agent says: “Is there any medication in the vehicle?”
The woman: “There might be because I just came from the doctor.”
The agent says something incomprehensible and then adds: “Your husband put us in this bind. Okay, step out.”
He tries to order the child out of the car, but the boy cries uncontrollably and he lets the woman remove him instead. The video wraps with the woman, using a cane, following the agents with her child in tow, saying: “I’ve never been arrested.”
The agent who moved the car, meanwhile, grabs the car keys from the vehicle and turns off the dashboard camera.
PINAC News reported the man’s name as Rick Herbert and the date and place of the incident as March 12 at a checkpoint 35 miles north of El Centro, just east of San Diego.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 3, 2014

We Now Are Killing American Citizens Who Were Informants. This Is A Travesty.



by Andrew C. McCarthy

Disclosures Pried From Government Strongly Suggest Terrorist Awlaki Was an Informant

Andrew C. MCCarthy
October 2nd, 2014 - 4:07 pm
New evidence pried from the government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proves the point I have positedhere at Ordered Liberty: The federal government willfully intervened on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki on October 10, 2002, undoing his arrest on felony fraud charges when he was detained at JFK International Airport in New York, and allowing him to walk away with a Saudi handler. As I argued over two years ago, the government’s story to the contrary – viz., that it was moved by sheer coincidence on the eve of Awlaki’s arrival to pull the plug on a weak case – does not pass the laugh test.
Twelve years ago, when the FBI intervened to “un-arrest” Awlaki despite the pendency of a valid felony warrant, he was a suspect – or, at the very least, a highly material witness – in the 9/11 conspiracy that resulted in the killing of nearly 3000 Americans. He went on to become one of al Qaeda’s most effective operatives. Awlaki is suspected of involvement in or incitement of the 2009 Fort Hood jihadist attack in which 13 U.S. soldiers were killed and many others wounded; the attempt to bomb a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009; the attempted bombing of Times Square in 2010; and the modernization of al Qaeda’s international recruitment practices.
In 2011, he was finally killed as an enemy-combatant by an American drone strike in Yemen.
Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, who in 2012 broke the news about Awlaki’s mysterious un-arrest a decade earlier, has stayed on the case. So has Judicial Watch, thanks to whose FOIA lawsuit, the government has been compelled to turn over 900 pages of documents about its investigations of, and communications with, the jihadist. As Ms. Herridge’s new reportingelaborates, the FOIA disclosures show that Awlaki had numerous contacts with the FBI well into 2004 – when the 9/11 Commission was trying to locate him for an interview based on mounting evidence of his likely knowledge of, if not complicity in, the 9/11 conspiracy.
Consistent with our government’s seemingly incorrigible penchant to dismiss extremist Islamic incitement as harmless rhetoric, and to perceive Islamic supremacists as “moderate Islamists” with whom it can collaborate, law enforcement officials knew about Awlaki’s extensive contacts with some of the 9/11 suicide-hijackers but excused them as “random [and] the inevitable consequence of living in the small world of Islam in America.” Years later, law enforcement and military officials knew about but ignored startling jihadist communications between Awlaki and eventual Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan.
The new information corroborates my suggestion here two years ago that, in letting Awlaki go rather than arresting him on the pending fraud charge, the government was “acting on the misguided hope of using him as an informant.” This is not only cause for potential embarrassment in its own right; it adds to the concerns over the circumstances of Awlaki’s death.
Though raised in Yemen, where he ultimately met his demise, Awlaki was born in the United States. Because he was thus an American citizen, many on the left and the libertarian right have condemned the Obama administration for killing him without any judicial process rather than capturing him and returning him to the U.S. for a civilian trial. The latter arrangement is one Obama has made for some of the worst alien terrorists, and would even make for the 9/11 plotters held at Guantanamo Bay if Congress would let him.
From a constitutional standpoint, this complaint is unavailing. Under World War II era precedents that the Supreme Court reaffirmed after 9/11, an American citizen who joins with the enemy in wartime may be treated like any other enemy combatant: attacked with lethal force, detained without trial, or tried by military commission. Wartime commanders-in-chief are responsible for prosecuting wars and do not need a judicial warrant to attack enemy operatives – certainly not overseas, outside the courts’ jurisdiction.
Critics claim the new disclosures suggest that President Obama authorized the extrajudicial killing of someone who was not only an American citizen but also a government informant. This dramatically overstates the case. Assuming Awlaki was an informant – or, more likely, a saboteur pretending to be an informant – that arrangement almost certainly ended several years before his killing. It has been over a decade since Awlaki left the United States and resettled in Yemen, where he overtly worked for al Qaeda and called for attacks against the West. There is every reason to believe this American citizen was an enemy combatant when he was killed in 2011; to date, even with the newly reported disclosures, there is no reason to believe Awlaki was an informant at that time.
Even though the legal objection to Awlaki’s wartime killing is unpersuasive, there remain other considerations. Let’s focus on three of them.
1. Successfully prosecuting a war requires good intelligence. Its acquisition is undermined by a policy that favors lethal attacks when capture (and subsequent interrogation) might be a practical alternative – a policy the Obama administration, in its aversion to Guantanamo Bay and the Bush policy of detention under the laws of war, seems to prefer. Awlaki is said to have been a pivotal player in al Qaeda plots against the United States; it is very likely that capturing him – and detaining him as an enemy combatant rather than dallying with him as a duplicitous informant – would have yielded valuable actionable intelligence.
2. While American citizenship does not immunize an enemy operative from attack, neither is it irrelevant. Awlaki was not executing combat operations at the time he was killed. If he had been encountered in the United States under such circumstances, he would have been arrested, not fired on. So, should his American citizenship – wholly apart from his potential intelligence value – have militated in favor of capturing rather than killing him? That is difficult to say.
Yemen is dangerous place. We have few reliable assets there and it may well be that capturing Awlaki would have been impractical if not impossible. On the other hand, many terrorists have been apprehended in dangerous places, including Yemen. We do not know what the competing concerns were. If capturing Awlaki was a practical alternative and the government chose to kill him instead, that would be alarming – perhaps an abuse of power even if not a violation of law.
3. Finally, there is the matter of embarrassment. Had Awlaki been captured and returned to the United States for trial, it is virtually certain that he would have attempted to build his defense around any relationship he may have had with the government. It may have become painfully apparent that Awlaki had played government agents for fools while he collaborated with terrorists; and that the government had numerous opportunities to arrest and put an end to Awlaki’s jihad, but instead allowed him to flee and continue igniting atrocities like the Fort Hood massacre.
Having worked in the Justice Department for many years, I would be stunned if the desire to avoid embarrassment factored, even slightly, into the decision to kill Awlaki rather than capture him. Irregularities and worse happen in many investigations; government often acts reprehensibly in stonewalling efforts to discover incompetence and misconduct, but it does not kill people for that purpose. In a trial situation, the embarrassing details are disclosed; defendants try to exploit them, but to little effect; and the terrorists get convicted.
Still, this government systematically and purposefully misleads Americans. Indeed, it has clearly not been forthright regarding Awlaki specifically. It is thus understandable that people would demand a thorough investigation rather than simply trust that this government targeted Awlaki for a drone strike solely because he was an enemy combatant plotting to mass-murder Americans.
I will close with what I closed with two years ago: Congress should be pressing hard for answers to the disturbing questions surrounding the government’s handling of Awlaki. Enough willful blindness.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)