Romeike Family Update
You might be living under tyranny if the administration
makes arbitrary decisions about who can be allowed to enter the country,
regardless of the law or natural rights.
We talked about the Romeike family from Germany (recently on March 22 and earlier in October 2011), here in the US legally
since 2008, based on seeking asylum when their native Germany severely fined
and threatened the parents with jail time and loss of custody of their
children. In 2010 a US circuit judge granted their asylum, along with a strong
statement about parents having a right to make decisions like education and
religion for their own children. Out of the blue (no apparent request from
Germany), the DOJ insists on overturning the ruling and kicking this
law-abiding family out of the country. Why? To declare to the American people
and the world that there is no inherent right to parent your own children; government
reserves the “right” to impose its decisions on parents and their children.
This should be an easy win for the family, as it had been
the first time. But this week the ruling came out against the Romeikes; they lose their right to be in the US, because
the judicial system has decided the threat of losing their right to parent and
maintain custody of their children is not sufficient to gain asylum. To paraphrase, "We can’t go willy-nilly granting asylum to people just because they could lose
their family and their freedom from imprisonment; bad stuff happens all over.
We don’t want to encourage people to come here for freedom, or we’d get some
kind of unmanageable influx."
Meanwhile, if someone comes here illegally, because economic
conditions are inferior where they come from (or not), even if they commit a
crime, the DOJ feels so strongly that they should be allowed to stay that it
sues states (Arizona, for example) for any effort to protect its own borders.
The road hasn’t ended quite yet for the Romeikes. There are
still a couple of levels of appeal. And then, if all continues to go against
them, I hope they will be allowed to find another less tyrannical country that
will accept them, rather than be turned over to the oppression facing them in
Germany.
Sibelius Obamacare Overreach
You might be living under tyranny if the government tries to
control your health care decisions. The IRS, already proven untrustworthy, is
put in charge of health care financing. (Note: a single judge decided the
government had the right to force Americans to buy health insurance if you
called it a tax, even though the monstrous bill passed by the slimmest of
margins, following various shenanigans, only because of the insistence it was
not a tax.) If things weren’t bad enough, the IRS happened to seize some 60 million personal health records.
Further, you’ve got the head of Health and Human Services,
Kathleen Sibelius, pressuring health care industry providers, over which she has oversight, to do her bidding to recruit
participation in Obamacare. This does not convince anyone of the intention to provide
more and better health care at lower, fairer prices. Prices might actually be
100%-400% higher than predicted.
Targeting for Political Reasons
You already know you’re living under tyranny when you’re a
target for being a patriot. Targeting of organizations because of their
pro-Constitution (and therefore presumably anti-regime) beliefs, is bigger than
the IRS policy of tagging organizations applying for 501(c)4 status.
Individuals have been targeted for IRS audit as well. And corporations have also been targeted—being
forced to publicly announce any of their political or issue-related donations.
The purpose here is the chilling of First Amendment freedom to express ideas.
I wanted to point out that 501(c)4 status implies that there will be political and issue
advocacy purposes, including lobbying related to the organization’s mission.
Donations to such an organization are not tax deductible. The advantage is only
to the organization; it has a cultural, social, or educational benefit and
purpose rather than making a profit, and therefore it does not have to pay
taxes on money going through the organization. This is the kind of organization
Obama spent his career years creating. So he knows what they can accomplish—and
that is why he wants to ensure that those he considers ideological enemies are
prevented from succeeding in their missions.
 |
| screen shot from Glenn Beck's 5-15-2013 show |
Glenn Beck sought input to name the combination of scandals.
His news people will start saying “Intimigate,” but for his purposes, he is
changing the spelling to “IntimOgate,” with the O being the Obama logo.
Implausible Deniability
You might be living under tyranny if your tyrant combines a
claim of leadership skill with a claim of unawareness of the behaviors of rogue
underlings. Why would the underlings so frequently behave in tyrannical ways,
if the tyrant’s leadership didn’t create the spoken or unspoken understanding
that oppression against the enemy is acceptable, even expected—as long as you
don’t get caught?
Thursday the president held a brief and pointless press conference, repeating that he knew nothing about the
IRS problem. Actually, what he specifically said was, “I can assure you that I
certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report.” He
didn’t say he didn’t know about the policy or practice of targeting political
enemies. He specifically denies knowing only the findings in the report. And his
swift action to hold people accountable? Accept the resignation of the acting
IRS Commissioner, who was stepping down in June anyway. Take that, IRS! That is
what the wrath of an outraged president feels like, when he’s out to protect
our freedoms.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know, that division that targeted
Tea Party groups the last couple of years? Their leader was promoted to run the Obamacare office of the IRS—because Obama was so outraged. Yeah, that’s it.
He didn’t know what happened in Benghazi. And his Secretary
of State was out of touch as well, both of them unaware it wasn’t a spontaneous
response to an internet video, even though all the rest of us knew it was a
terrorist attack.
His DOJ head didn’t know about the AP phone record overreach
either. (And of course can’t be blamed for the collection of data related to
phonecalls from the AP that just happened to connect to the legislative branch.) He knew it was in response to one of
the most crucial leaks of classified information in our lifetimes, a clear
danger to the American people, and therefore worth getting the legal
permissions for the invasive move. But it wasn’t important enough to mention
such a threat to the president, who remained unaware entirely until he heard
about it on the news. Nor did Attorney General Eric Holder remember any details, because he recused himself from the case early on, for reasons that he
couldn’t recall.
Did we mention that this administration,
in five years, has prosecuted more whistleblowers (for leaking classified
information that endangers the country?) than all of the previous presidencies
combined? It’s an everyday event for the DOJ, but the AG wouldn’t know about
that.
If any more scandals pop up in the coming days, be assured
the president will hear about it on the news, just like the rest of us.
Comedian/commentator Jon Stewart put together a collection of the president’s
new favorite buck-stops-somewhere-else explanation about knowing nothing before
the news reports. It’s a 5-minute clip; the part about the president getting
his briefings by the news starts at about 2:40 in:
This much scandal is upsetting. But it also could be a good
thing. We’re hearing about the news. In such a flood that it’s hard to take in,
but at least these things are being reported. And, because of the AP scandal,
some news sources might actually begin to make assumptions other than, “those
are just right-wing conspiracies,” and think, “maybe the president hasn’t been
entirely truthful up till now.”
All along it has been my hope we could have clarity. Let
truth prevail, and not deception. I still believe people who know the truth
choose freedom and civilization, rather than tyranny and savagery.
No comments:
Post a Comment