America as a Totalitarian Dictatorship

24 December 2011 07:43 Ray Peach

America as a Totalitarian Dictatorship

Since my first deployment to South East Asia, I have seen this great country gradually slip away. America has gone from being the world’s greatest creditor nation, standing as a beacon of hope for the world, to the world’s biggest debtor nation, where 42 million Americans rely on food stamps to survive. All of this prompted me to write a book, where I detail how this all came about, and how America will end. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, it is happening right now in front of us. Like it or not, America is a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and this article will help you understand why.

» If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter

After the Oklahoma City Bombing, my job required that I attend a two-day briefing on counter terrorism. At that meeting, several people from the DoD, NSA, and FBI repeatedly stated that the biggest threat to National Security was domestic terrorism. The specific examples they provided were members of the National Rifle Association, Right to Life Organizations, Military Veterans, and others who were merely exercising their constitutional rights, or in some cases, doing nothing at all. Myself and others were encouraged to engage in a program where we would report on coworkers, employees, and neighbors about such things as “subversive” bumper stickers. Since it’s the role of the government to protect constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech, I understood this was no longer a country dedicated to liberty and the rule of law – since none of these activities are illegal.

Obama’s Marxist mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and his associate, Carl Friedrich, equated socialism and totalitarianism saying, “[It] is a system of revolution, which seeks to destroy the existing political order so it can be changed economically, socially, and culturally.” so as to comply with socialist ideology. “Totalitarian movements, motivated by the general goals which their ideologies outline, have thus not stopped at the seizure of power.”

In reality, while socialists are constantly talking about how great things will be, stated plans are never realized, because the elite never had any intention of implementing them in the first place. To hide this, socialists say that things would have worked, if only the elite had more power, money, or time. Failure is always someone else’s fault.

The intent of a socialist regime is to increase the political control of the elite, or to maintain the status quo. However, as Utopian symbols are replaced with political reality and the economy starts to fail, the state must incrementally apply pressure and violence to maintain control. This creates a problem for the state, as a free society is composed of interlocking and overlapping groups with various interests. It is almost impossible to subject one social group to punitive, or “re-educative,” measures without producing a hostile reaction, not only from the group concerned, but also from other groups, whose vested interests dictate their response. In time the socialists really have no choice but to resort to massive terror. Totalitarian terror is, therefore, the vital nerve of the socialist system.

The compulsive emphasis on the total support of the regime forms part of, “the great universal religion” that mirrors the Hebrew-Christian faith, while persecuting all heretics. In time, the dissenter commits an intolerable offense to the grandeur of the socialist enterprise, and must be liquidated because he or she has no place in a world that the socialist movement is bent on building. The bourgeoisie (middle class), the Christians, and the Hebrews remain outside of that unanimity and are therefore traitors. Terror makes certain that the masses are not infected, while the misfits are liquidated. In this way, all brutal premeditated violence and terror becomes rationally justified to the socialist. The citizen’s support for the state’s use of terror must be active not passive; and in time all members are expected to participate in whatever ritual of violence is required of them.

At first, terror centers on the liquidation of open and secret resistance but soon moves to the hunt for “potential enemies.” Only in this later stage does terrorism come into its own, as it aims to fill everyone with fear and vents its full passion against humanity.  The state hunts actual or potential enemies, and in many cases, actual enemies are purposely passed over in favor of the liquidation of innocent people, so as to instill fear in everyone. Soon terror reigns supreme as the bodies’ pile high and the corpses rot and stink.  Lenin summed this up when he said, “When the old society dies, the corpse of bourgeois society cannot be nailed down in a coffin and put in the grave. It decomposes in our midst, this corpse rots and contaminates us.”

A Terroristic State Police

Friedrich and Brzezinski make no secret that the plans for the destruction of our existing society are total, and will lead to a massive use of terror.  This has always been the case with such plans, as any reader of communist or fascist history can tell you. In every respect, human life and the nature of social existence is subjected to extensive revisions; provided for in the ideology and the subsequent expedient requirements of the new order.

The history of socialism tells us that, socialist dictatorships initially adopt a step-by-step program that gradually increases in violence.  When the cognitive strain between dogma and reality becomes so great that it can no longer hold its illusion, massive terror becomes necessary to maintain the party’s grip on power. In 1934, this was officially made part of Soviet law, giving the MVD (secret police) a free hand in political cases. Similarly, the German Gestapo dispensed “justice” through administrative processes from which there was no appeal. Eventually torture, murder, purges, and concentration camps became a way of life, where no legal procedure was followed at all.

The machinery of terror is based on defending the “people” from its “enemies,” and is glorified for its heroism and efficiency. It relies on a pliable criminal code that broadly defines a political offense in terms of its potential threat to the state (the people). Socialism depends on a national system of terroristic police to control and supervise party members and non-party members, exploiting modern science – including scientific psychology.  Supervision and enforcement of such laws requires a national court system that is structured on socialist ideals, the abject degradation of police and judicial procedures, and a disregard for the stated purpose of the law.

While at the Harvard School of Government in the 1970s, Carl Friedrich taught that the state has a monopoly on violence, along with the right to use it whenever the elite deem it appropriate.  Friedrich pointed out that in socialist states, the role of the police consisted of enforcing the socialist agenda, not with protecting the citizen, or maintaining law and order. He said that with the coming authoritarian American state, the role of the police would be “vastly expanded” to enforce extensive new regulations and views on morality, saying, “The guardian of law and order is no longer… the protector of the weak against the strong and the attacker, but the agent of the government in all its ramifications”.   One of Friedrich’s students was George Bush (V2.0).

In 2009, the Rand Corporation developed a report entitled, “A Stability Police Force for the United States, Justification and Options for Creating US Capabilities.” The stated purpose of this police force is to merge the functions of the Department of Homeland Security with military units to create a “high end” police force like those currently being developed in Europe. This organization would have jurisdiction over local civilian police departments. The report provides information on funding, manpower, training, and political considerations. It makes no secret that it is directed against the U.S. citizen.

According to the Whitehouse web site, on January 11, 2010 Obama signed an executive order for the “Establishment of the Council of Governors,” granting the president the authority to appoint a ten-person council to rule the country in case of an emergency, further expanding NSPD-51 and HSPD-20.  Max Weber did a similar thing in Weimar Germany after WWI when he worked to create Article 48 that would give the German Chancellor dictatorial powers in case of an emergency.  Hitler took advantage of Article 48 by having his own Storm Troopers burn down the Reichstag (German Parliament) while blaming it on the Jews. Using this as a pretext Hitler then declared martial law and the world would never be the same.

Things had been somewhat different in Russia where the Tsarist government, mostly through manipulation and propaganda, was regarded as being too corrupt and evil to support. Not realizing that the Bolsheviks were much worse, the average Russian, including the Army and Navy, would no longer support the existing government. As a result the Bolsheviks literally just walked in and took over.  It was only after the hope and change occurred did the Bolsheviks show that they were infinitely worse than the Tsars had ever even been purported to be, igniting revolution.

The Crossover

Friedrich & Brzezinski said the end of America would come with the acceptance of fraud, especially the acceptance of propagandistic fraud on a large scale, followed by the ideological acceptance of force and violence. Not so much physical violence at first but psychological violence that is done to the mind and to moral sentiment. Friedrich and Brzezinski predicted 50 years ago that this would be the result of the ice cold reasoning of an ideology that is built on pseudoscientific principles.  The final phase, they said, would be rapid radicalization, the seizure of power, and the total transformation of the economic system. This would soon be accompanied with use of physical violence and terrorism on a large scale, along with the liquidation of enemies of the state.

As I write this, Obama has said he will sign a bill that will remove all pretext of law in this country. It injects the military directly into domestic affairs, giving them the ability to detain and execute, without trial, any American Citizen they want to in the US – simply by calling them a terrorist. Say goodbye to Posse Comitatus.

While this is portrayed as a mechanism for protecting Americans from Al-Qaeda, section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expands the definition of terrorism to cover “domestic,” as opposed to international, terrorism.   A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.

Another provision of the USA PATRIOT Act entitled “Disclosure of educational records – Sec. 507.” This section requires a judge to issue an order permitting the government to obtain private educational records if the Attorney General or his designee certifies that the records are necessary for investigating domestic or international terrorism.  No independent judicial finding is required to verify that the records are relevant.  This means that the Attorney General may obtain the private educational records by asserting that the records are relevant to a domestic terrorism investigation.  These records may include information such as a student’s grades, private medical information and counseling, which organizations the student belonged to, or any other information that the educational institution collects about its students.

This means that anyone can be called a terrorist if the government says they are, if it merely appears that someone wants to intimidate or coerce someone else; but the definition of intimidation and coercion have been redefined under hate crime legislation, where the mere appearance of improper thought represents terrorism as evidenced by anything the state wants, including the church, school, or classes you attended. Today people and organizations listed as terrorists include: The TEA Party, people who pay in cash, military veterans, and anyone else exercising their right to disagree with the Government.

To further illustrate the real meaning of this legislation, it should be pointed out that in 2009, La Raza member Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, although she and her organization have a history of advocating the violent overthrow the United States. Just 48 hours after Obama announced her nomination, George Bush (v2.0), Carl Rove, and John McCain attended a La Raza meeting, where they voiced their approval of the radical organization. This and other actions such as refusing to control the boarders, shows that the target of the Federal government is middle class America.

Simultaneously with the decision to throw the concept of a “trail by a Jury of your peers” out the window, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has announced the activation of detention camps around the nation, under the guise of housing large number of illegal aliens. However, the DHS has also announced they are reducing the number of border patrol agents by half, and are not working to detain or deport illegals, so this argument is obviously false.  These camps were constructed under a 2006 contract with Halliburton, again for the supposed detention of illegal immigrants.

America as a Totalitarian Dictatorship

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic system of government that is ruled by an individual. A totalitarian government is one where every aspect of human behavior is controlled by the state, defining right, wrong, good and evil – where all disagreement is forbidden

As I am writing this, Obama is suing the State of Arizona for passing a law that essentially says that they will enforce existing Federal Statutes. In the suit, Obama’s argument is that Presidential policy trumps Federal and State statutes, and a federal judge agreed. Meanwhile, Congress did nothing – making this a dictatorship. In September, a Christian schoolboy was suspended from Western Hills High School in Texas for saying he thought that being a homosexual is wrong – making this a totalitarian dictatorship.

The American people have been complacent for too long, and they need to wake up. On January 5^th, 1967 Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

It’s this generation’s turn and if we choose to ignore the call because our favorite show is on TV, the next generation won’t have any hope at all.

Copyright © 2011

Mr. Peach (visit his website)  is a retired engineer who spent a great deal of his life traveling the world to solve problems for fortune 500 companies and the U.S. Government. After serving 8 years in U.S. Naval Air he went to work for Litton Guidance Systems as a field engineer, working in the Middle East and Asia. For the next 12 years he worked as a systems engineer for Hughes Aircraft where he was involved with the F-14D, F-15E, and the F/A-18 tactical aircraft………..read more

 

Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention.

December 25th, 2011

Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, U.S. Congress!

.

.

“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”- Marine General Smedley Butler.

Oath Keepers has launched a national effort to recall (or remove by any other lawful means) all of the oath breaking members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, who voted for the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (NDAA), which contains provisions that authorize indefinite military detention and trial by military commission of “any person” – including U.S. citizens and lawful residents – upon the mere say-so of the President or one of his subordinates in the Executive Branch, such as within the Department of Defense or CIA.

Number three on the Oath Keepers list of Orders We Will Not Obey states:

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

That is near the top of our list for very good reason – this claimed power will kill our Bill of Rights unless it is stopped.  To be blunt, we consider the NDAA of 2012 to be a declaration of war on the American people, and an act of treason.   But even if you disagree with that view, and merely consider those who voted for it to be oath breakers, please work hard to remove them all from office.  Oath Keepers members across the nation will lead or assist efforts in their states to remove any member of Congress, regardless of party, who voted for this monstrosity.

We encourage all Americans of whatever political party to set aside their differences and come together in defense of our Bill of Rights by rooting out this den of vipers in Washington D.C. who are either knowingly killing our Bill of Rights, were too concerned with their careers to take a principled stand by voting against the NDAA, or are useful idiots who don’t understand what they swore an oath to defend.  Whatever their excuse, they have violated their oaths to defend the Constitution and must be sent packing.  This is not about politics.  This is about defending the Constitution.  As Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes put it:

These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution.  It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America.  It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.

As two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”   Time to fight.

This is a bi-partisan assault on the Bill of Rights that will require a bi-partisan defense.  We the People must adopt a scorched-earth policy against all who voted for the NDAA of 2012, regardless of party, using any and all lawful means available to remove them from office.  If you can remove them by means of recall, then do so.  If that option is not available in your state, consider working to make it an option in your state.  If attempts to recall are stopped by the courts, then root the oath breakers out in the next primary of whatever party they are in, making this issue the litmus test and supporting a challenger who will pledge to repeal this dangerous law.   Make this desecration of our Bill of Rights campaign issue number one.

And if you don’t manage to root them out in the primary, then defeat them in the general election, again supporting a challenger who pledges to repeal the detention provisions of the NDAA.   Use whatever lawful means or combination of strategies available to get the job done.   And even when any particular method “fails,” it still succeeds in keeping the focus on this act of betrayal, and it serves to educate the American people, waking them up to the ongoing bipartisan assault on our Bill of Rights.  Even if we lose a battle we can still win the war.

We must keep this issue in the public eye, and keep the pressure on.  Just as Jefferson and Madison were successful in rallying opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which clearly violated the Constitution, and used that opposition to sweep the Federalists from Congress in what was known as “the revolution of 1800,” we must rally opposition to this clearly unconstitutional act and use it to sweep all of the Bill of Rights killing career politicians, of both major parties, out of Congress.   Clean them all out!

To kick off this national campaign, Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes, along with Montana artist William Crain, will be personally spear-heading a recall effort in Montana, aimed at all three of Montana’s federal delegation -  Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus, and Representative Denny Rehberg – since they all voted for the NDAA.  Stewart said:

Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and “focus of effort” on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite.   In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights,  transforming America in to the Fourth Reich in the name of “national security” while claiming to be defenders of the Constitution.   There is surely a special place in Hell reserved for such hypocrites.  The blood of America’s war dead cries out for the Bill of Rights to be defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we will answer that call.

My only question for Denny Rehberg is if he is a knowing traitor to our Constitution, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham (both of whom served in the military and clearly know exactly what they are doing), or is Rehberg just a useful idiot?   Regardless of the answer, he is unfit to be dog-catcher and I will make it my mission in Montana to ensure that this oath breaker never serves in public office again.

And as for Senator Jon Tester, Stewart Rhodes had this to say, directly addressed to the Senator:

Senator Tester, my friend Jim Manley introduced us back in 2006, at Doug Wold’s place in Polson during the Montana Trial Lawyers Convention, when you were running for U.S. Senate against Conrad Burns.  Jim assured me that you would fight against the neocons who were assaulting the Bill of Rights, and when I met you, I looked you in the eye and asked if you would fight to stop them, and you answered “yes.”  And so I was very happy to see you defeat the oath breaking Conrad Burns.  I am a one issue voter –and that issue is the Bill of Rights.  Conrad Burns, who voted for the PATRIOT Act, was a Bill of Rights wrecking machine who had to go.  Good riddance! But now you have gone down the same path by voting for the NDAA of 2012, betraying the trust that Montanans placed in you to stand up for the Bill of Rights.  You blew it when it counted most.  You violated your oath.  I sincerely hope Montana Democrats select someone better in the upcoming Montana Democratic primary.   We cannot afford more of the same.

No More Pernicious Doctrine

The NDAA of 2012 is the single most dangerous and destructive anti-constitutional piece of legislation to ever pass through Congress since it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and especially at our Bill of Rights, stripping away not just the ancient right of habeas corpus, but also directly violating the right to jury trial guaranteed by both Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment, and also directly violating the Treason Clause of Article III, Section 3, which defines the crime of treason, stating:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Thus Article III clearly establishes what must be done with any Americans accused of making war against the United States or aiding the enemy – those Americans must be tried in an Article III civilian court, before a jury of their peers, and there must be two witnesses to the overt act or a confession in open court (extra evidentiary hurdles) before their lives or liberty can be taken from them, as Justices Scalia and Stevens aptly pointed out in their dissent in Hamdi.

Despite that clear constitutional trial remedy for the only crime defined by the Constitution itself, with its extra due process protections for accused Americans, the NDAA purports to instead subject Americans to indefinite military detention without trial for the duration of the war on terrorism – which may last forever – or trial before a military commission, rather than before a civilian jury as Article III plainly demands whenever any American is accused of being a traitor.

The NDAA detention provisions also directly violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  There is no more unreasonable seizure of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident than having them black-bagged and “disappeared” by the U.S. military on the mere say so of the President or some subordinate within the Executive Branch, without a showing of probable cause in support of arrest before a neutral judge, and without an indictment by a Grand Jury as is required by the Fifth Amendment.   And as already noted, the right to jury trial clearly mandated by Article III and by the Sixth Amendment is grossly violated.   Such arbitrary indefinite military detention and military trial of civilians are the hallmarks of repressive dictatorships throughout history.

This act by Congress is but the latest in a long train of abuses begun by the Bush Administration and carried forward by the Obama Administration.  The Bush Administration began the assault on the Bill of Rights by using arbitrary military detention on two American citizens, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, with Padilla “captured” at the Chicago O’Hare International Airport and detained at a military brig in the United States for three and a half years.  The Bush Administration based those detentions on a flawed World War II decision, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), wherein the same Supreme Court that gave us the horrendous Korematsu decision ruled, for the first time in U.S. history, upheld as “constitutional” the military detention and trial of American citizens as “unlawful combatants” under the laws of war rather than a trial for treason, in a civilian court, before a jury of their peers, as our Constitution demands whenever any American is accused of making war against the United States or aiding the enemy in wartime.

Before that one incident in World War II, the only other time a President had applied the laws of war to the American people was when Lincoln detained approximately 15,000 Northern civilians and tried nearly 5,000 of them by military tribunal.  That detention and trial under the laws of war was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866).   Prior to that unconstitutional practice by Lincoln, all who were accused of making war against their own nation, or aiding the enemy, recieved a trial for treason, before a jury of their peers.  And after Lincoln, such an attempt to use the laws of war on the American people was not attempted again until FDR did it during World War II.    Nor was it attempted again until after 9/11.

It was then, in 2001,  that the Bush Administration used that nearly forgotten World War II Quirin decision to support a claim of power to treat America like a battlefield and to apply the laws of war to the American people, treating U.S. citizens and lawful residents the same as the people of conquered enemy nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where anyone merely accused of being an “enemy” can be detained indefinitely by the military, or tried by tribunal and executed.  And the modern federal courts have given their rubber stamp of approval, most significantly in the Hamdi and Padilla cases.  And so, the flawed Quirin decision that laid around like a loaded gun for sixty years has been picked up, dusted off, and used to bring the laws of war home to America, shoving aside our Bill of Rights, and transforming America, step-by-step, into the equivalent of occupied Iraq.  Again, read Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi  an in-depth analysis of the history and cases, see the paper on this topic that Stewart Rhodes wrote in 2004 while a student at Yale Law School, which won Yale’s Judge William E. Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights.  Stewart also wrote a shorter article in 2005 for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College, which summarized his findings.   And you can listen to a recent radio interview Stewart did on this topic, where he lays out exactly how dangerous this law will be, and provides a summary of the relevant caselaw.   As Stewart stated in his November, 2010 interview with The Daily Bell:

The modern resurrection of these dangerous doctrines, which apply the international laws of war to the American people and treat them the same as foreign enemies on foreign battlefields, is one of the principle reasons I founded Oath Keepers.

In Stewart’s above noted writings of 2004 and 2005, he warned that the logical conclusion of this application of the laws of war to the American people is not just detention and trial, but also simply killing Americans on sight, since that is what can be done to a military enemy in wartime.  And that is exactly what has begun to happen.

Obama, instead of rolling back such absurd claims of Executive Power like he promised during his campaign, has doubled down and has taken this claimed power to use the laws of war on Americans to its absurd logical conclusion by asserting that he has the power to order the killing of any American he determines is an “unlawful combatant” during the war on terrorism – just as he does with foreign enemies on a foreign battlefield.   And Obama has done just that.  He has had U.S. citizens killed.   When the “leader” of a nation can put any citizen’s name on his secret list of people to be snuffed out -  a list he concocts based on “secret evidence” he refuses to show anyone – and, without a trial, without a chance for the victims to defend themselves, and without even knowing they are on the list, those kill-on-sight orders are carried out, you are living in a dictatorship.  The U.S. routinely condemns such extra-judicial killings in other countries as gross human rights violations, and rightly so.  But now our own government claims the power to do that to any of us and has begun to do it.

And now Congress has given its overwhelming vote of approval for this insane application of the laws of war to Americans.   By passing the NDAA with these detention and trial provisions, Congress is piling on, and giving its overt support to that claimed power. What was once a power implied, ‘interpreted” and inferred by two administrations, and in various court cases has now been given overt approval by Congress, to “make it legal” while defenders of the act do the long-winded equivalent of “move along citizens, nothing to see here.” As Law Professor Jonathan Turley put it:

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle.The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights.

See also the analysis at the Law Prof Blog and by Glenn Greenwald, here.

As Rep. Tom McClintock, speaking in opposition, aptly put it:

I rise in opposition to Section 1021 of the underlying Conference Report (H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act).

This section specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” – whatever that means.

Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda?  We don’t know.  The question is, “do we really want to find out?”

We’re told not to worry – that the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law.

But wait.

There is no existing law that gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process.  There is only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-defined war on terrorism.  But it is a power not granted by any act of Congress.  At least, not until now.

What this bill says is, “What Presidents have only asserted, Congress now affirms in statute.”

We’re told that this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of the Bill of Rights.

That’s a good point, IF the Court were the sole guardian of the Constitution.  But it is not.  If it were, there would be no reason to require every member of Congress to swear to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution.

We are also its guardians.

And today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty.

And Senator Bernie Sanders declared:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And Senator Rand Paul warned:

If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

Across the political spectrum, Americans are waking up to what has been done, and are  indeed standing up to defend our Bill of Rights against all comers.   The apolitical nature of this alarm and resistance is well demonstrated by the fact that two retired four-star Marine Corps generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, wrote a scathing condemnation in the N.Y Times, demanding that Obama veto the bill.  Sadly, Obama himself is an oath breaker.

While Congress does have both the power and the duty to remove oath breakers and traitors from office, with a House vote of 283 to 136 (with 14 members not voting), and a vote in the Senate of 87-13 in favor of this abomination, impeachment is a sick joke since they will not impeach themselves.  Impeachment only works when a majority in Congress take their oaths seriously, have the requisite knowledge of our Constitution to know when it is being violated, an the courage and integrity to defend it.  We are now faced with a super-majority in Congress who have amply demonstrated that they have either utter contempt for our Bill of Rights, are so ignorant that they don’t know when they are destroying the heart and soul of our Constitution, or are so cowardly that they will not take a principled stand.  In any case, they will not correct themselves, by resigning or impeaching each other, and it thus falls to We the People to step in and correct them, by removing the oath breakers from office before they complete the destruction of our Bill of Rights.

One thing that must be made clear to the oath breakers in Congress who voted for the NDAA is that there would be no Constitution if not for the promise of a Bill of Rights.   So, by destroying our Bill of Rights, they are destroying the Constitution that created the three branches of the federal government.   By destroying the Constitution, Congress is destroying itself.

We must, and we will, exhaust all peaceful means we have left of defending our Bill of Rights.   But make no mistake, we, the American people, and especially we, the American veterans, will defend our Bill of Rights at all hazards, up to and including by giving our lives in its defense.   We are duty bound to do no less.  We will not leave our children to a world without the Bill of Rights.   Our fathers and grandfathers fought, bled, and died to defeat fascism over there. We will not abide it here at home.   They honored their oaths, and we shall do the same.  And we will set aside all other differences to take this stand.  For without the Bill of Rights, America ceases to exist.

For the Republic,

Oath Keepers

National Defense Authorization Act Passes, Gives President the ultimate power to detain U.S. Citizens

December 15, 2011

The National Defense Authorization Act and its provisions regarding the detention of U.S. citizens who are suspected of terrorist activities has now passed the House of Representatives.

And for those who had hoped that President Obama’s threat to Veto this bill would save the nation, that hope is also gone.  The Obama administration has announced that the President will no longer veto the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill, which allows U.S. Citizens to be detained indefinitely without a trial, is now likely be signed into law.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that last minute changes to the act would “not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people,” and “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”

So what are those changes? Basically, the wording was changed to make it appear that the controversial detention of American Citizens provision was pulled from the bill. But if you look closer, a “waiver for national secretary” was added to the bill that overrides those provisions. The Waiver makes it possible for President Obama and future Presidents to detain and execute, without due process, anyone who is considered a National Security Threat.

Obama’s veto threat was never really about preventing the detention of American citizens without trial. It was all a power struggle; basically he didn’t want the military to have more power than he did. Once the house guaranteed that the President would be the one who had absolute power to target American Citizens, he dropped his so called Veto threat.

In fact, President Obama had already signed an Executive order to target U.S. Citizens last year and it seems the Veto threat had more to do with the original language conflicting with his self appointed powers.

And who exactly does the government consider a threat to National Security?

Well according to a warning given by Rand Paul on the Senate Floor, they seem so consider preppers, survivalists and those who are self reliant to be a threat to the nation.

Last Hope: Rep. Landry Introduces Amendment to NDAA to Protect Americans from Indefinite Detention Without Due Process

The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert
December 24, 2011

I have been extensively covering the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, commonly referred to as the NDAA, and the incredible dangers it presents (including authorization for covert offensive cyberwarfare) since I was first made aware of its existence.

If you’re not familiar with this legislation, please take the critical moments to educate yourself on this issue by reading my article about the predecessor bill, S. 1253, along with my first, second, and third articles about the latter versions along with my coverage of the civilian internee designation and KBR’s move to create teams to make the so-called FEMA camps operational within 72 hours.

This is a large picture that requires stepping back and taking in as much information as possible in order to truly understand what is going on and not be deceived by the traitors in Washington and their cronies in the establishment media outlets.

I also recommend you take a moment to get yourself psychologically prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best.

I have been making a concerted effort to debunk the disinformation peddled by far too many people who claim that, despite the clear language in the bill to the contrary, American citizens cannot be indefinitely detained without charge or trial under the legislation.

Yet, the assault on our most essential civil liberties has been relentless, thanks greatly in part to the establishment media covering the NDAA as little as possible and a concerted effort by some of our so-called representatives like Congressman Tim Griffin to deceive the American people.

Thankfully, Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican Congressman from Louisiana introduced H.R. 3676 which intends, “To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article II of the Constitution of the United States.”

I think this is of dire importance for us all, as the lack of clear language prohibiting the detainee provisions from being applied to United States citizens and other lawful residents currently in the NDAA is nothing short of disturbing.

Recently, The Hill reported that Landry received “a commitment from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to revisit the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to ensure that language related to detainees does not give the U.S. government new rights to hold U.S. citizens without due process.”

It is important to note that despite the hollow claims repeatedly parroted by some of the traitors in Washington, the current language in the NDAA does not prohibit the detention of American citizens without charge or trial, as I have clearly outlined in previous articles.

To continue to say otherwise is, at this point, simply delusional.

Landry said that he has “a commitment from the chairman [of the House Armed Services Committee] that the type of language I have [in H.R. 3676] is the type of language he would use to clarify that.”

The unfortunate reality is that our so-called representatives in Washington already passed the NDAA with the un-American language wholly intact.

They did so with a truly unsettling margin, with only 13 Senators standing up for the most essential of our civil liberties and in the House a shocking 283 Congressmen and Congresswomen voted to strip us of the rights upon which this nation was built.

Landry rightly points out, “Congress over the last 30 years has just not done a good job of basically telling the administration through legislation what the confines of its power are. All we’re trying to do is say look, this is what Congress is trying to intend.”

If historical precedent is any indication, Landry’s insistence on getting iron-clad language into the bill is the only thing that will stop the criminals within our government from exploiting the legislation to put every American citizen who stands up to our out of control government in military detention indefinitely.

Unfortunately, Landry told The Hill that he does not expect McKeon’s committee to meet until early 2012, adding that he would be pushing for the work to begin at some point in January.

Landry reflected that he is hoping that a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee will assist in the clarification of the issues presented by the NDAA and perhaps eventually lead to improvements to the bill.

“The Founding Fathers granted Congress specific duties; and as a representative of the people, it is my duty to pass laws that protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens,” Landry said earlier this month. “Toward this end, any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a President to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming and should be cautiously scrutinized.”

The grim reality is that Section 1021 of the NDAA presents, as you can see by reading it yourself on page 265 of this PDF version of H.R. 1540 as it was finally passed by both chambers.

Currently, Congressman Landry has a mere 30 co-sponsors by his side from both parties. While it is encouraging that there are 30 Representatives willing to stand up against the immense tide of federal tyranny, it is also somewhat troubling that only 30 people take their oath of office seriously.

While the Constitution only contains an oath of office for the president, other government officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.”

Then in 1789, the First Congress changed the requirement to include a short oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

The Presidential Oath of Office is as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This means that every single individual who signed the NDAA, without the preventative language included in Section 1021, is nothing short of a traitor.

If Obama signs the bill, as he has made clear he in fact will do by backing down from his laughable veto threat, he will also be in violation of his oath and could thus be classified as a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which in my mind would make him a “belligerent” who could then be detained indefinitely under the NDAA.

Of course, this would likely never happen, nor would justice be meted out to the Congressman and Senators who also betrayed their country and their constituents in voting for the NDAA.

At least we can continue to hope that individuals like Landry who, earlier this month, “engaged U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman in a colloquy … guaranteeing the legislative intent of the NDAA did not aim to indefinitely imprison American citizens,” will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans.

With the significant opposition Landry is facing in preserving our liberties, I honestly would not be surprised if his amendment was struck down.

That does not mean that we should not hold out some bit of hope, no matter how small, and continue to push our so-called representatives in Washington to uphold their oath and thus the constitution and our liberties protected therein.

This article also appeared at End the Lie

.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death: Beware the Senate Bill 1867 (NDAA)

Senate Bill 1867: The Building Blocks for the Coming Martial Law

H.R. 3785:

To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

www.govtrack.us

Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]
Introduced: Jan 18, 2012
Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process.
View Committee Assignments: