Obama


Rogue Threat

By A. J. Tata

Like a gladiator about to enter the coliseum, President Obama stood alone in the foyer just outside the House chamber as the Sergeants at Arms jostled for position prior to the State of the Union speech.

In stark contrast to the cacophony happening just meters away inside the chamber, Obama was motionless. As I studied the president, I searched for emotion on his face—but I didn’t see any.  Then, with stark clarity it occurred to me why: I was staring at an overwhelmed man.

He had that thousand-yard stare of a man asking himself now what?

No one can be sure what was cycling through President Obama’s mind as he prepared to enter his faux arena. Was he visualizing himself as Maximus, about to slay the beasts? Was he reflecting on his purpose for being there, having already achieved his goal of becoming president?  Or was it something else entirely?

To me, the answer is obvious: Obama is Maximus without the strength and honor, and certainly without the leadership. Having personally led soldiers in combat, I believe what I saw in Obama was a frightened emptiness, a look that screamed, I’m used to everyone uniting around me, I don’t know what to do when there’s real opposition.  And with good reason.  The internal dissonance one suffers when confronted with the reality of being completely unprepared for a situation is without a doubt frightening.

But if that is indeed the truth, then the question becomes, How did he fool us? German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche calls Obama’s affliction the “Will to Power.” His quest for domination outpaces even his most basic instincts. It is not about survival, rather, the end-goal is omnipotence. His actions and rhetoric ruthlessly support his instinctual drive toward domination.

Obama’s unrelenting and rapid rise to the presidency is, as Nietzsche describes it, a result of his need to, “Become master over all…and to thrust back all that resist.” Whatever comes next is almost irrelevant, as evidenced by the droning, scattershot speech praising progressive, aka socialist, ideas such as universal government healthcare while also offering conservative solutions such as drilling for oil and building nuclear reactors.

In my years of combat and military operations I’ve witnessed the effects of unchecked Will to Power and it’s never pretty.  Thankfully, Obama’s problem is that he has willed his way to power in a democracy that actually gets to vote and has a constitution designed specifically for guys like him. Now that’s he got the power, his visions of grandeur are checked and balanced by not only the legislative and judicial branches, but by burgeoning movements such as the Tea Parties.

The problem with achieving power by shedding your liabilities and cutting deals is that you don’t have a clue what to do once you get there, because you are not the person you once were. The Will to Power has left Obama a hollow shell, ripe for manipulation by the leftist groups who got him elected.  Obama’s goal was to become president, not actually serve the nation. And when you spend so much time denying who you have been (severing relationships with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright comes to mind) it is hard to know who you really are anymore.

Americans are finally, and rightfully, beginning to ask, “Who is this guy?” They’re increasingly not happy with the answer. His poll numbers are down 25% and voters in states like Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts have begun to chip away at the unmitigated power they bestowed upon him a year earlier.

A year into his presidency, Obama’s Will to Power has him passing the buck faster than a Russian mobster, still blaming Bush for whatever is wrong. Having assumed command many times of different combat units, I know that the day you “take the flag” you are in charge. Every problem, pre-existing or not, is your problem. But because Obama is not personally vested in the presidency, he takes no issue with assigning blame elsewhere. His mission already accomplished, and confused about how to lead, his only instinct is to luxuriate in the perks of his office.

But the crafty American people have picked up on his hypocrisy and half-truths. For example, in his State of the Union speech the president said, “In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education.” Yet he took just 60 days to bow to the National Education Association president’s demand to kill the voucher program in Washington, DC that was providing private school choice to impoverished children. Americans rightfully balk at his education rhetoric when they watch his children hop in their government provided limo to Sidwell-Friends, one of the most restrictive private schools in the nation, while denying kids across the street the same option. Why would he do such a thing? Simple: his Will to Power has left him a vacuous soul, subject to, in this case, the whims of the campaign cash-laden teachers’ unions that routinely protect dues paying adults at the expense of children.

Want another example?  Obama promised to fight the just war in Afghanistan, yet when General Stan McChrystal called his bluff and laid out a plan last summer, Obama wanted to abstain as he had done so many times in the senate. The problem wouldn’t go away, so he publicly chastised his hand-picked general, as if that would bolster his own eminence.  The people reel at his unforgiveable three-month delay (Obama responded quicker to the NEA than he did McChrystal) in determining whether to resource the Afghanistan war. They chafe when he says, “Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.” We all know that as commander in chief he could have demanded an “option” that ordered troops to the war zone immediately.

Obama’s Will to Power was captivating to many Americans, but they have seen he is no leader and he has no plan.

For next year’s speech, I would really enjoy watching a moving point of view shot, call it Obama-cam, as he prepares to enter the chamber so that we see what he sees. We can be alone with him in the foyer and hear his breathing, perhaps even a commentator speaking his thoughts as if he’s the president. “It’s just a speech,” he will be saying. “A performance.” Then we can see the hands reaching down and feel the power flowing toward us. Obama-cam can tilt and pan, absorbing the energy, while the disembodied voice will say, “This is why I’m here.”

If it’s theater, we might as well enjoy it.

Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata (USA, Ret.) is the author of “Rogue Threat” and “Sudden Threat”.  100% of any proceeds go to the USO Metro Hospital Services fund for Wounded Warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center.

The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily of Glenn Beck or Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.