Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sin of omission: Auschwitz

More evidence suggests President Roosevelt actively prevented the bombing of railways, and the Auschwitz death camp. International Holocaust Memorial Day is January 27.

By Martin Barillas

“There is now broad agreement among Holocaust historians regarding the question of David Ben-Gurion’s position on bombing Auschwitz,” said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which had been urging the museum to study the subject in depth. “Roosevelt’s apologists can no longer use Ben-Gurion to whitewash the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz.” The Wyman Institute has issued a study of its own, “America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A New Consensus Among Historians,” which will be made available this week on the Institute’s website, www.wymaninstitute.org/

Info: WymanInstitute

U.S. Holocaust Museum
Rebuffs FDR Defenders

Defenders of President Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust have been dealt a major blow, as a study by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has rejected a claim they frequently have made regarding the U.S. failure to bomb Auschwitz.

This aerial photo of Auschwitz was taken by Allied reconnaissance planes preparing for bombing raids on German oil factories near Auschwitz in June 1944.

In numerous speeches, articles, and conferences in recent years, officials and supporters of the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in Hyde Park, NY have claimed that then-Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion opposed bombing Auschwitz (for fear of harming prisoners). Roosevelt supporters have made the claim to deflect criticism of FDR for the U.S. rejection of requests to bomb the death camp.

But a two-year study by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, completed in January 2012, concluded that Ben-Gurion opposed bombing the camp only for a period of several weeks when he believed it was a labor camp, and then reversed himself when he learned more about the true nature of Auschwitz, and thereafter supported bombing. Ben-Gurion’s associates in Europe and the United States then repeatedly pressed Allied officials to bomb the camp.

“There is now broad agreement among Holocaust historians regarding the question of David Ben-Gurion’s position on bombing Auschwitz,” said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which had been urging the museum to study the subject in depth. “Roosevelt’s apologists can no longer use Ben-Gurion to whitewash the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz.”

The Wyman Insitute has issued a study of its own, “America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A New Consensus Among Historians.” Click here to see the Wyman study.

Among the many Jewish leaders who called on the Allies to bomb Auschwitz in 1944 were World Zionist Organization president (and later president of Israel) Chaim Weizmann, senior Jewish Agency official (and later Israeli prime minister) Moshe Sharett, veteran Jewish leader Nahum Goldmann, and Palestine Labor Zionist leader (and future Israeli prime minister) Golda Meir.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
About the Wyman Institute
1200 G. St. NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-434-8994

Prof. David S. Wyman

Filed under: Socialists/Communists, Terrorism, War, World Events Tagged: (FDR) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Auschwitz, Auschwitz death camp, Auschwitz Omission, David Ben-Gurion, David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, The Wyman Institute ]]> http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/u-s-holocaust-museum-rebuffs-fdr-defenders/feed/ 0 bonfiresblog chain line David Wyman http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-delphi-technique/ http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/the-delphi-technique/#comments Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:46:28 +0000 bonfiresblog http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/?p=4824 ]]>

What is it? A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, such as the the “Alinsky Method“

What you need to know about the Delphi technique and how to diffuse it.
Anyone trying to problem-solve with a group needs to know this information.

The Delphi Technique: How To Achieve A Workable Consensus Within Time Limits

- by Lynn Stuter

he Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the “Alinsky Method” (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The “change agent” or “facilitator” goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms “task forces,” “urges everyone to make lists,” and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument ­ the “weak or non­committal.”

“This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well­trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes “sensible” whether such is warranted or not. “

Disrupting The Delphi

Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, “facilitator” references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to seer a group in a specific direction.

1.  Always be charming.

2. Stay focused.

3. Be persistent.

Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent. Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim. the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It s called crowd control.

Note: Please refer back to Lynn Stuter’s paper for the full article and her description of how the Delphi Technique can be diffused.

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?

Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms

Albert V. Burns

It is interesting, and EXTREMELY important to Americans, both as parents and as citizens, to clearly understand just HOW the “squeezing out” process takes place. It is a well defined, if not well perceived, process known as the “Alinsky Method” (which was derived from a procedure named as “The Delphi Technique.”) This method of manipulating people is based on the fact that people in groups tend to share a common knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics known as “group dynamics.”

In this process, one or more people known as “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” appear to be acting as organizers, “allowing” each person in the group to express their concerns about some program or policy under consideration. While this process is going on, people are urged to make lists or form into task forces. The Facilitator carefully notes which members of the group are leaders, which are “loud mouths” and which may be easily swayed to different viewpoints.

At a certain point, the previously friendly Change Agent begins to act as “devil’s advocate,” becoming an agitator. The process involves playing one part of the group against another, the “divide and conquer” technique. Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitator’s agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic. The idea is to make these members of the group angry thus escalating tensions. The end object being to shut opposition voices out of the group.

“With the increasing demand for education reform, increasing agitation among the public and more and more grassroots research exposing the defects in our current government indoctrination centers, also known as public schools, more and more people are being exposed to this Alinsky method of maneuvering public meetings toward preset goals. Somehow, people walk out of public meetings wondering just what happened – how were their ideas and objections so neatly derailed. This consistent pattern of manipulation of public meetings is causing concern about the corruption of the very process of government established by our Founding Fathers.”

Note: Please refer back to Albert V. Burns ‘s paper for the full article.

Using the Delphi to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle – the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

Note: Please refer back to the Eagle Forum for the full article.

Sources:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/alinsky_method.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Delphi_Technique.htm
http://www.expertprogrammanagement.com/2011/03/groupthink-examples-avoidance/

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

What is Groupthink?

Groupthink occurs in groups when individual thinking or individual creativity is lost or subverted to stay within the comfort zone of the consensus view. People’s common sense and ability to perform problem solving, make good decisions, and raise unpopular views are overridden by the desire for group consensus.
Groupthink can lead to teams making the wrong decisions and so project managers, program managers, and indeed managers at all levels need to be mindful of it. Groupthink is particularly prevalent in cohesive groups, groups with a strong leader, and groups working in isolation. A number of general techniques exist to avoid groupthink, along with a number of specific tools, including Nominal Group Technique and The Delphi Method.

What is Critical Thinking?

by Dianne F. Halpern

Join Our Censorship Protest!

by Jane Wells

Have you been paying attention to all the hubbub online about the proposed U.S. legislation (SOPA/PIPA) that threatens internet freedom? I wrote about it last week over on WordPress.org, but the gist is this: there’s a bill in the U.S. Senate that if passed would put publishing freedom severely at risk, and could shut down entire sites at the whim of media companies. Fight for the Future created this nifty video to sum it up better than I can.
Thank you!

http://vimeo.com/31100268

For you WP bloggers, there are two options: a “Stop Censorship” ribbon and a full blackout. The blackout portion will be in effect January 18 from 8am to 8pm EST, while the ribbon will be displayed until January 24. To join in please refer back to original blog for directions.

*This site will be in full blackout mode January 18th with a protest ribbon displayed until January 24th, 2012* 

 WEB GOES ON STRIKE

January 18th, 2012 is the largest online protest in history, to stop the internet censorship bills, SOPA & PIPA. Join in by blacking out your site and urging everyone you can reach to contact Congress now.

January 18th is going to be amazing. Sites are striking in all different ways, but they are united by this: do the biggest thing you possibly can, and drive contacts to Congress. Put this on your site or automate it by putting this JS into your header, which will start the blackout at 8AM EST and end at 8PM EST.

Press Contact

Email: press@fightforthefuture.org (Press only please!)

Otherwise email: team@fightforthefuture.org).

Phone: (508) 474-5248

Everyone: Prepare to Strike

Websites: How to Strike

Confirmed Participants:

PROTECT IP / SOPA Act Breaks the Internet

http://vimeo.com/31100268

Congress needs to hear from you, or this bill passes

The video above discusses the Senate version of the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In the Senate the bill is called the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA has gotten more attention than PIPA because it was moving faster in the legislative process. But PIPA is just as dangerous, and now it is moving faster.

PIPA would give the government new powers to block Americans’ access websites that corporations don’t like. The bill lets corporations and the US government censor entire websites and cut sites off from advertising, payments and donations.

This legislation will stifle free speech and innovation, and even threaten popular web services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

The bill is scheduled for a test vote in the Senate on Jan. 24th: We need to act now to let our lawmakers know just how terrible it is. Will you fill out the form above to ask your lawmakers to oppose the legislation and support a filibuster?

Online Directory for the 112th Congress

Senators of the 112th Congress  

SOPA and PIPA: Just the Facts

By Jared Newman, PCWorld    Jan 17, 2012 6:00 PM

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act are getting more negative attention, as major websites such as Wikipedia plan to protest the bills with blackouts on Wednesday. Even Google will join the action, with a link on its homepage explaining why the company opposes the legislation.

SOPA and PIPA: The Basics

Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They’ve tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S. government to shut down domains based in the United States. But none of those actions can stop overseas websites such as The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload from infringing copyrights, or prevent Internet users from accessing those sites.

Enter SOPA, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PIPA, in the U.S. Senate. Both bills are aimed at foreign websites that infringe copyrighted material. The bills are commonly associated with media piracy, but may also apply to counterfeit consumer goods and medication.

Arguments for and Against SOPA and PIPA

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers. “The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts,” says the EFF.

Who’s for SOPA and PIPA, and Who’s Against?

Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is the author of SOPA, which is backed by 31 cosponsors in the House. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) wrote PIPA, which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. ProPublica has a visualized list of supporters in both the House and Senate. Continue reading article

Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation

Klamath Economic Restoration Act Introduced in Congress!

The Klamath Economic Restoration Act was introduced November 10, 2011 in the US Senate by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and in the House by California Congressman Mike Thompson deserves prompt Congressional action, said a growing group of bi-partisan supporters. A growing and diverse coalition representing tens of thousands of people including, ranchers, fishermen, Tribes, business owners, and conservationists say the Act’s collaborative solutions will end the ongoing water crises hurting Klamath communities that still have double digit unemployment figures (see partial list of Agreement supporters below).

Klamath Economic Recovery Actsupporters stress that many livelihoods are at stake and now is the time to settle long-standing water rights disputes and avoiding catastrophes such as the 2001 water shut-off, 2002 fish kill, and the 2006 commercial salmon fishing closure.

“When disaster hit and litigation got drawn out, we were challenged by elected officials to develop our own solutions to the water crises that have devastated our communities,” said Steve Kandra, Klamath Basin farmer. “Together we did it and we’re part of a strong and growing constituency that expects our elected officials to seize this opportunity to end the Klamath Crisis.”

The legislation’s bi-partisan recommendations are based on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Agreements, companion documents that were developed by farming, fishing, tribal and environmental groups with support from both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as Governors Brown, Schwarzenegger, Kitzhaber, and Kulongoski. Jeff Mitchell, lead negotiator for the Klamath Tribes noted, “This bill is a marked departure from past attempts by one interest group to strong arm one another. Instead we’ve set aside ideological debates and focused on protecting everyone’s interests collectively. It’s exactly the type of win-win policy Congress should embrace.”

The legislation authorizes the Administration to carry out economic development and restoration activities laid out in the Klamath Settlement Agreements. It also provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to determine whether four aging dams should be removed. The Agreements are designed to provide security to commercial fishing and agricultural economies that when healthy are worth more than $750 million a year to the region, and employ thousands of people in rural areas suffering from high unemployment.

“This Congress has the opportunity to solve the Klamath Crisis. Failure to act will mean more lost jobs and a continuation of the economic insecurity that is destroying our rural communities,” said Becky Hyde, an Upper Basin rancher.

Reflecting on the challenges of working with Congress, Glen Spain, representing the commercial fishing industry emphasized: “Our rural communities simply can’t afford to do nothing. That’s a recipe for another round of catastrophes like the fish kill and irrigation shut-off. We desperately need Congress to act now.”

# # #

The Struggle to Restore the Klamath

The Karuk, Klamath, and Yurok people have lived along the banks of the Klamath River since time immemorial. The river and surrounding forests have long sustained the people with an abundance of fish, game, acorns and more. Over time, the Klamath’s rich natural resources have steeply declined to the point that the Tribes can no longer sustain themselves.

At the same time, new communities and economies have grown to depend on the Klamath’s resources. In recent years, bitter conflicts have emerged between Tribal, agricultural, and commercial fishing communities. For many years neighboring communities challenged one another’s right to live and prosper in the Klamath Basin.

The pending Klamath Restoration Agreements mark a change to this approach and seek to reverse this trend.

We hope the information on this site helps others understand why these Agreements represent the best opportunity available to not only remove dams, but to restore the river while providing economic security to the Klamath’s struggling rural economies.   

Background

Located along the California-Oregon border, the Klamath is a unique River Basinhome to many diverse species of wildlife, as well as economically and culturally diverse rural communities. The Klamath River Basin is huge. Ecompassing over 12,000 square miles the Klamath River Basin is about the size of the state of Maryland. The Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes still harvest salmon and c’wam from the river for cultural and subsistence purposes, family farmers and ranchers use the river for irrigation of diverse crops, and coastal commercial fishing families depend on Klamath salmon to earn their living. For many years, these competing demands have led to uncertainty for all Klamath communities as dwindling fish runs and too many demands on limited amounts of water led groups to fight against one another’s interests. Fishing closures, fish kills, and irrigation shut-offs have resulted in a rotating crisis for Klamath communities.(video about Klamath Crisis)

In an effort to solve the crisis and provide for a more secure future for all the Basin’s residents, Klamath Basin stakeholders have produced two companion agreements that together represent a roadmap for the largest river restoration effort in US History while remaining sensitive to local economic needs. The Agreements were developed as an alternative to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s relicensing of Pacificorp’s Klamath dams but encompass issues beyond deam removal. Together the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydoelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) describe the removal of four large dams,a plan to balance water use in the Klamath Basin, and economic stability for all of the Klamath’s diverse rural economies. 

Reaching Agreement

Each Tribe is culturally unique yet the Tribes have worked collaboratively in recent years on a common vision — reconnecting and restoring the Klamath River. It is with this spirit of collaboration and common purpose that the Tribes along with allies such as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and a variety of conservation groups began laying the groundwork for basin-wide restoration and dam removal in the late 1990s.

Although the state of the Klamath’s fisheries had been in decline for decades, three horrific events culminated in a surprising effort of inter-community collaboration. In 2001, for the first time in the history of the Klamath Irrigation Project, irrigators experienced a water shut off to protect recently ESA listed coho salmon and sucker fish. This left crops to wither and die in the fields and farm families to protest and litigate. In 2002, with the drought persisting, farmers were allowed to irrigate and a massive fish kill occurred leaving tens of thousands of migrating adult salmon dead in the lower Klamath. In 2006, low returns of Klamath salmon led to the near total shut down of the West Coast salmon fishery, leaving family fishermen without a way to make a living.

In the midst of this rotating crisis, the Klamath dams’ operation license expired requiring dam owner PacifiCorp to go through a detailed relicensing process. The three groups suffering either directly or indirectly from the steep decline in fish populations slowly realized that the dam relicensing provided an opportunity to craft a settlement that could balance water use, restore habitat, and put Klamath fisheries on the road to recovery.

Over the next several years, representatives from tribes, fishermen, irrigators, conservation groups, as well as local, state, and federal agencies, worked diligently on the details of such a plan. A major breakthrough came in 2007 when, after years of resistance, a new

management team at PacifiCorp agreed to joint settlement discussion, creating the opportunity to discuss terms for dam removal – a fundamental step in fisheries restoration.

The product of these collaborative efforts are two agreements – the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). If implemented, these agreements will bring about the most comprehensive river basin restoration effort in US history and serve as a model for resolving contentious struggles over resources in diverse rural communties. We invite you to support our efforts!

Bronze Star recipient, Chad was credited with personally locating and destroying 24 roadside bombs, training 13 commando engineers in counter-IED tactics and fighting in more than 20 direct fire engagements. USO Sailor of the Year for 2011, Regelin was an explosive ordnance disposal technician with Mobile Unit Three in southern Afghanistan and was on his second tour of duty there when he was killed.

Petty Officer Regelin is the 1,865th American to die in Afghanistan … Ich hatt’ einen Kameraden

*Burial with full military honors will follow at the Northern California Veterans Cemetery in Igo*

Chad R. Regelin

Flags Over Capitol at Half-Staff for Fallen Sailor

Governor Brown today has ordered that flags be flown at half-staff over the State Capitol today in honor of fallen U.S Navy Sailor Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin, of Cottonwood, who was killed in action in Afghanistan last week.

Remembering Chad Regelin

Procession Route:

The funeral procession will begin around 12:00 p.m. Saturday Jan. 14th from Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints in Anderson.

The procession is expected to arrive around 1:00 p.m. at the Northern California Veterans Cemetery 11800 Gas Point Road Igo, Ca.

Below are Google directions of the procession route:

See Interactive Map

Video

Slideshow: Remembering Chad Regelin

 Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin

 Guest Book

“I’ll lend to you for a little time,
A child of mine,” God said,
“For you to love while he lives
And mourn for when he’s dead.”

“It may be six or seven years
Or twenty-two or three,
But will you till I call him back,
Take care of him for me?”

“He’ll bring his charms to gladden you
And should his stay be brief,
You’ll have these precious memories
To comfort you through grief.”

“I cannot promise he will stay
Since all from earth return.
But there are lessons taught down there
I want this child to learn.”

“I’ve looked this world over,
In my search for teachers true.
In the crowds of this great land,
I have selected you.”

“Now will you give him all your love
Not think the labor vain,
Nor hate me when I come to call
To take him back again?”

Michael LeMieux: NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

-

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael160.htm

-

NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

By Michael LeMieux
January 4, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that arguably makes US Citizens detainable by the military, comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the “Enemy Expatriation Act.”

But before I get into this bill let me preface that with a few observations.

First, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty and self-determination. A belief that all men were created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights imbued within each of us at the time of our birth. We did not, and do not, derive our rights from government and therefore cannot legally have them taken from us by that government.

Second, as our Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and as important, they derive their powers from the consent of the people. I ask you to think upon the following question in light of the previous statement: If the government derives its power from the people, how can the government wield power that the people do not have? If the people do not have such a power then the government, on their behalf, cannot likewise yield such power.

Third, the federal government was created by consent and compact, a Constitution. Within that Constitution the branches of government were laid out, defined, and scope assigned. Each branch of government was given certain powers to act for the betterment of the nation as representatives of a collective set of nation states that recognized the need for a single voice in foreign matters and as an arbiter between the states to ensure regular trade and commerce between the states and settle disputes.

To ensure that the federal government did not go further than the prescribed powers they enumerated the legislative powers of the government to a few distinct areas (Article 1, Section 8). But they went a step further, to emphasize the point to the federal government and to put to rest some resistance within the states, that federal government would not stay confined, they added the Tenth Amendment stating: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now I ask of you; with the enormity of our federal government, with its massive spending, size, and laws that reaches into every aspect of every citizen’s life, is our government today one of limited power? I think the answer is a blatant no.

So how does a government, such as ours, go from limited power that literally had no direct impact on the lives of the citizens of the states to one of tyrannical proportions? You cannot make improvements to your own property without permission and paying a tribute. You have the flow of toilets and shower heads dictated to you on what you can and cannot have. We have been using incandescent light bulbs for years but now the government is forcing you to use highly toxic, mercury filled, bulbs (for our own good). And the list of expansive government powers is as long as the list of government agencies and sub-agencies within the federal government. But it did not happen overnight.

We have heard from those of this administration that they do not want crises to go to waste. This is not a new concept – every major governmental expansion has been preceded by one crises or another, manufactured or real, it does not matter. Politicians know that they can take advantage of the public, using their positions of power, during times of national crises and pass laws they know they would not be able to do otherwise.

Inch by inch, nudge by nudge, taking more and more power with each passing legislative session until one day we will (have) awake to find ourselves living under an unconstitutional tyrannical government. I do not say this lightly, I have spent most of my adult life in the service of my country and have offered up my life if need be, but I am abhorred by what I have seen her become.

This brings me to this newest legislation by “our representatives” in Congress. This is Senate bill S. 1698, entitled as the “Enemy Expatriation Act.” This bill is two pages, a novelty in the age of 1,000+ page bills, and states (relevant parts):

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’’

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘(6) and (7)’’ and inserting ‘‘(6), (7), and (8).”

————— End of Bill

For those not familiar with legislative bills there may not be anything that stands out from the above bill wording – and that is by design. By just reading the words above, under the title of “Immigration and Nationality Act”, we see that this affects those people who are “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.”

One would reasonably conclude that what they are talking about would be those terrorist spies who come to America and gain citizenship and use that access to attack us, right? I’m sure that is part of the reasoning but who else is caught up in this legislation and would be affected by it?

Well if we look at the underlying US Code that it is modifying we see that the “who” this is targeting is (8 U.S.C. 1481):

“(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—“(Emphasis added)

Just as the wording was placed in the NDAA to include US Citizens here too you have to follow the crumbs of obfuscated law back to the source. And if you have any doubt that a national, born or naturalized, is a “Citizen of the United States;” Black’s Law Dictionary, Version 7 gives the generic and specific definitions. The common term national means simply “a member of a nation.” Then under the specific “national of the United States,” and this is who our laws are written for, it states “A citizen of the United States or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States… Also termed U.S. national; U.S. citizen.” In the eyes of the government the terms are synonymous.

This law could have been written to be very specific by stating that any naturalized citizen engaged in these activities would fall under this law, but they did not. Are they inept, stupid, morons? Some may think so; I think they knew exactly who they were targeting.

We have seen and heard from the Department of Homeland Security of persons they consider a threat to national security and to the government of the United States. They are returning combat veterans who would have the skill of arms and combat, single issue voters such as abortion, gun rights, 10th Amendment, etc., people with Ron Paul bumper stickers or gun rights bumper stickers, or people who believe in the Constitution. These people have been portrayed by the DHS, and the FBI as potential terrorists.

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario to you: let’s say that government X over many decades or even centuries has slowly become oppressive and tyrannical toward its own people and was operating outside of the lawful powers it was given by those people. After years of voting, replacing representatives, and using the governmental systems of change the government still gets worse and worse. One day a few sporadic individuals across the nation decided to try and stop this encroachment by whatever means necessary. How would that tyrannical government portray those individuals? As a terrorist? As a belligerent? Would they try and strip them of their citizenship so they would not have the protections of law and can be dealt with as enemy of the government – though they are clearly not enemies of the people, for they are of the people.

This is exactly what they are trying to do with this legislation. But what is even more insidious is that they state that because you strive to protect your nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that because you disagree with the government (not the Constitution) that you, by your actions have committed an “act of expatriation… [and] shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily.”

We have already seen the expansion of who the government considers a terrorist threat, which by the way include some retired generals and high ranking military personnel. Now they can just nudge the law just a little bit and have American citizens deemed enemies of the federal government, strip them of their citizenship and treat them as they see fit.

If at any time in our history we needed men and women to stand for what is right, not just what is easy, and to obey your oath to the Constitution of the United States, IT IS NOW! You did not swear to support a government, a general, a President, or any other person of any position, you swore and oath to Support and Defend the Constitution. Not a piece of paper but the ideals of Liberty and Freedom, the last vestige of true freedom upon the face of this earth

Now is the time to tell Washington they are wrong, they have overstepped their Constitutional authority and must stand down.

How do we do this? Through our state governments! We must phone, visit, email, write letters, create groups of concerned citizens and demand that they stop this continual infringement on the state and the people’s powers and pass laws that will make unconstitutional federal laws enacted within their boundaries a crime to enforce and arrest any federal agent trying to do so in your state.

The federal government has enjoyed a long train of usurpation of powers through legislative trickery such as what we have seen over the past 50 years, from both sides of the isle. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue it is a Liberty and Tyranny issue. If we do not fight this now through the peaceful channels left for us we will undoubtedly fight them in the most horrific way. I have seen the horror of battle first hand and we do not want this on our shores, but there is a groundswell that sees too much of history being repeated here that will lead to nothing good if we do not stop this now and return to the rule of law and the basis of the that law is the Constitution.

© 2012 Michael LeMieux – All Rights Reserved

-

Michael LeMieux is the President of Nebraska Oath Keepers and author of the book entitled “Unalienable Rights And The Denial Of The U.S. Constitution”.

You can order your copy here:

http://www.constitutiondenied.com/order/order.htm

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be “infringed” upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

Read More Posts

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Alex Wong/Getty Images

”In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.”

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”

One official explained that President Obama does believe, however, that American citizens can be temporarily detained, and that the military has the right to capture and hold any citizen who is engaged in conflict against the United States. If various provisions in the law prove unworkable, the president could go back to Congress to ask for changes.

“The president is going to adhere to the policies that he has held over the last three years, making sure that none of these congressional provisions impede the ability of the counterterrorism and military professional from keeping the country safe,” the official said.

December 31, 2011 3:51 Pm

Obama signs defense bill

(AP)

HONOLULU — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having “serious reservations” about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran’s central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Mr. Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.

“Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded,” Mr. Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress’ intent. During his campaign for the White House, President Obama criticized President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Mr. Obama’s signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans’ constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al Qaeda or “associated forces” and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” President Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau’s ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn’t clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

In response to the threatened penalties, Iran warned this past week that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf waterway. U.S. officials say that while they take all threats from Iran seriously, they view this latest warning as little more than saber rattling because disrupting the waterway would harm Iran’s economy.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

President Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 – 2012)
H.R.1540

There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.1867 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.

1 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)[S.1867.PCS][PDF]
2 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] – ES)[S.1867.ES][PDF]

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.