Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Stuter
Articles:

Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools,
and Systems Education

 

More
Stuter
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HYPOCRISY OF IT ALL
PART 2 of 2

 

By Lynn Stuter
January 19, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The result will be a significant increase in the net profit of insurance companies and a greater cost to Americans for not only health insurance but also health care costs. That's what all that money, funneled into the pockets of Senators and Representatives, has bought the insurance industry.

The Democrats response to this unethical use of taxpayer money by the Oval Office? Silence; dead silence.

Again, hypocrisy at its best!

In the same CBS report on the "racially insensitive" remarks of Harry Reid, the extent of the Congressional junket to Copenhagen for the Climate Summit was also reported. As Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who went on his own dime, explained, "They're going because it's the biggest party of the year … the worst thing that happened there … is they ran out of caviar!"

How much did this junket cost the American taxpayers? Well, that isn't yet known, and Pelosi and company are definitely not talking, but here are a few figures that might give us some idea: three jets at $9,903/hr for a total of at least $168,000; the cost of airline tickets for the sixty or so who had to fly commercial at approximately $2,000 a pop; hotels, meals, transportation and etceteras for some 300 people at five star hotels. It is doubtful the total cost will come in at under $500,000!

While Pelosi and company were quick to pass Cap and Trade, based on junk science, jetting off to Copenhagen with a extensive entourage, creating tons of "greenhouse gas" in the process, bothered her (nor any of her extensive entourage) one iota. One Democrat told the CBS reporter that the size of the entourage showed the world how serious the U.S. was about global warming!

For those who would like to explore the reality of the junk science that stands behind Al Gore and his "global warming" agenda as well as the Climate Summit at Copenhagen, all the information can be found here. It is testimony to what your tax dollars can buy. It has come to light that $500,000 in stimulus money, stolen from the American people, has been granted to Michael Mann, one of the scientists caught up in the Climategate controversy. Don't expect a refund any time soon!

Congress's response to this waste of taxpayer money, of taking off to Copenhagen on the taxpayer dime while people in America are losing their jobs, their homes, and their ability to provide for their families; while unemployment continues to rise with no end in sight? Nancy Pelosi refused all requests from CBS for an explanation. As for the rest of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike: silence, total silence!

Again, hypocrisy at its best!

On January 11, 2010, the White House press released the text of an Executive Order signed by AKA.

According to the press release, the executive order, unless challenged (which won't happen), establishes …

"a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

The actual executive order can be read, in its entirety, here.


Advertisement

Some believe the establishing of this "council" under the auspices of the executive branch to be a precursor to martial law. Possibly. What is a definite, however, is that it violates the 10th Amendment. The executive branch has no constitutional authority to establish a council of state governors for any purpose.

Beyond that, the expenses of the council will come out of the taxpayers pocket!

Recently, a Rand document surfaced; one that should send chills up and down the spines of freedom-loving Americans. That document, in its entirety, can be found here. The .pdf format can be found here.

This document was prepared for the United States Army via Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001. That means you paid for it. On a hunch, I did a search for Rand Corporation contracts for California, for the year 2006 at USASpending.gov and there it was, first item on the list. How much did this report cost you? Only $16,774,000!

The title is chilling enough: "A Stability Police Force for the United States; Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities."

No doubt the words of AKA, made July 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, come to mind,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. … People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The Preface of the Rand document delineates its scope and focus,

This project investigates the need for a U.S. Stability Police Force, the major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed. In doing so, it considers options based in the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State. The project was conducted for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI). Its purpose was to make recommendations to PKSOI, the Army, and the community of rule-of-law researchers, practitioners, and policymakers on the need for (and characteristics of) a U.S. Stability Police Force.

This document addresses what needs to be done to bring about the Stability Police Force. The question of whether such a force is needed is not asked, it's a foregone conclusion.

While one might assume this body would be for off-shore operations in foreign countries; such an assumption would be erroneous.

On page 105 of the pdf format of this document, under Chapter 4, "Institutional Capability", subsection "Other Institutional Issues", subsection "Authorities", in discussing the "legalities" of a stability police force, comes this little gem,

"The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law enforcement capacity while in the United States. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective. Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations. In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions.18 The issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions is moot (our only “contracting” option does not consider a standing contract force, but rather one hired as needed) and would probably be insurmountable if it was not. Furthermore, as noted in our DOTMLPF discussion, working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel. MPs can do this on military installations, but contract personnel would not so act at all."

The contract for this document was let in April 2006 with the final report issued by Rand in 2009. Quite obviously, the idea of a civilian national security force did not originate with AKA.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Have you heard about this from your Congress "person"? Have you heard about this on your local radio or television station, or from any of the big-name radio or television personalities?

Does this report have any bearing on AKA's executive order establishing the Council of Governors?

Can you hear the pin drop? For part one click below.

Click here for part -----> 1,

2010 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case you are in shock, feel free to go back and read that again. Translated, what AKA said was that if you support AKA's Marxist agenda, it's okay if you make what are considered racially insensitive remarks.