Archive for the ‘National Defense Authorization Act’ tag
Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com
February 17, 2012
In a move completely ignored by the establishment media, the Virginia House of Delegates has voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), legislation that codifies in Virginia law noncompliance with the “kidnapping provisions” …
“Now everything’s a little upside down, as a matter of fact the wheels have stopped
What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good, you’ll find out when you reach the top.” – Bob Dylan, Idiot Wind.
“No rays from the holy heaven come down
On the long night-time of that town;
But light from out the lurid sea
Streams up the turrets silently-
Gleams up the pinnacles far and free-
Up domes- up spires- up kingly halls-
Up fanes- up Babylon-like walls-
Up shadowy long-forgotten bowers
Of sculptured ivy and stone flowers-
Up many and many a marvellous shrine
Whose wreathed friezes intertwine
The viol, the violet, and the vine.
Resignedly beneath the sky
The melancholy waters lie.
So blend the turrets and shadows there
That all seem pendulous in air,
While from a proud tower in the town
Death looks gigantically down.” – Edgar Allan Poe, The City in the Sea (1831).
“John Murdoch: Excuse me. How do I get to the end of the line?
Train Passenger: You want the Express.
John Murdoch: [after train blows by him] Hey, how come that train didn’t stop?
Station Master: That’s the Express.” – Dark City, Directed by Alex Proyas (1998).
“A man made of stone has nothing to say.” – Kno, If You Cry f. Natti, from the album Death Is Silent (2010).
President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union speech contained all the hit singles that made Obama’s 2008 cross-country tour such a success. The world was also treated to new singles off Obama’s new 2012 soundtrack, “I Killed Bin Laden,” including the title song and the hit record of the 2011 political year that captured the world’s imagination, “No Options Off The Table.”
The reviews for Obama’s performance have been negative, with many saying that Obama’s optimistic tone does not correlate with the reality of America’s dismal economic crisis and Washington’s political stalemate. The verdict is that Obama gave a campaign speech, not a State of the Union speech, which is a sad reflection of America’s current political life in which even the President is stuck in perpetual campaign mode.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), who are the biggest critics of Obama’s live show in front of a sell-out crowd, released the most damning evidence of Obama’s eroding public appeal in a short video called “Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record.”
The video shows a President who is on autopilot and reads off of the same cue cards that were prepared by his handlers for his State of the Union speeches in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Obama comes across as a frozen, robotic, and toothless president who effortlessly makes false promises and raises false hopes.
A real leader stands by his words, and fulfills his promises. Obama’s words lack authority because they lack purity, sincerity, and substance. As a result, Obama does not have any personal authority. And it doesn’t help that the authority of the Oval Office, which Bush had already damaged extensively, has totally faded away in Obama’s first term.
But although Obama signs dictatorial legislation like the NDAA and grants himself the power to have anyone on the planet killed, he is no Caesar. Obama is not a dictator in the traditional sense. He does not possess the masculine strength or natural charisma to be one. Obama has not built himself up to the highest public position of power in the United States.
Instead, Obama was installed in power like a political software virus by the globalist authoritarian oligarchs to serve as a will-less robot and advance their secret agenda of global tyranny and global mass death of human populations.
In his speech, Obama did not mention fears of a global economic collapse or educate the American people about the origins and evolution of the U.S.-Iranian standoff. Also, he had no words of wisdom to offer America. It was one of the most dumbed down speeches by a president in modern memory.
There should be poetry, intellectual depth, political clarity, honesty, and truth in a State of the Union address. America is a poetic, mystical, and spiritually deep country, and it deserves a president who gives voice to the many currents of thought in the vast American mind.
But Obama is not an intellectual. He only pretends to be one in order to contrast himself from the previous retarded president.
Imagine what it would be like if a literary and poetic soul resided in the White House instead of a lying lawyer or a professional politician. Imagine if Jefferson or Lincoln had spoken on Tuesday night. Imagine realness and honesty coming out of a president’s lips.
Read Ron Paul’s “What If. . . ?” speech that he delivered in early 2009, shortly after President Obama’s inauguration.
Read Thomas Jefferson’s short and sweet State of the Union Address on November 8, 1804.
Read what Abraham Lincoln said in his State of the Union Address on December 1, 1862:
“Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free–honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just–a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.”
Lincoln said America “can not escape history,” and that it is “the last best hope of earth.” Those words were powerful because they were timely, backed up with action, and grounded in history.
America needs original thinkers and visionary men in Washington. But what it is getting in Obama and Republican politicians is superficiality and mechanical leadership. There weren’t any memorable phrases or ideas in Obama’s State of the Union speech. Obama’s words are only memorable because he repeats them twenty different times in twenty different speeches. He is the king of doublespeak. And his diminishing presidential authority is creating a huge crisis of confidence in the country.
The world can only hope that “the last best hope of earth” finds its way out of the darkness of ignorance in 2012 and rejects the superficial leadership offered by President Obama along with his fellow Republican traitors who remain silent on the death of America.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges has filed suit against President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Sections of the bill are written so broadly that critics say they could encompass journalists who report on terror-related issues, such as Hedges, for supporting enemy forces. “It is clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges says of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.” We speak with Hedges, now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute, and former New York Times foreign correspondent who was part of a team of reporters that was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. We are also joined by Hedges’ attorney Carl Mayer, who filed the litigation on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The passing of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, could very well scrub the Internet clean of any content that the US government considers questionable.
The massively popularly website Reddit is well aware of these implications and is ready to show the world just what harm SOPA could do to the Internet.
On January 18, Reddit, a user-generated aggregator of content contributed by all corners of the Internet, will black out their own site in protest of SOPA. For an online hub that snags up around 2 billion hits every month, a lot of traffic and ad revenue stands to be lost during the 12-hour span. For the administrators of the site, though, they are running short on finding ways to fight the legislation.
Advocates against SOPA have rallied in Washington and across the country and Internet since a congressional committee began drafting the Act. Under the legislation, websites and people that post or share third-party content could be crushed with heavy fines and imprisoned for the distribution of knowledge. While opposition has existed ever since the terrifying realities of SOPA made its way to the Web, the ban by way of Reddit stands to be the biggest and only protest of its kind so far.
On January 18, Reddit announced that “Instead of the normal glorious, user-curated chaos,” the site will suspend its content and instead post a message about the dangers of both SOPA and the Protect IP Act, a sister legislator of sorts about to go before the US Senate. The site will also post a live stream of the House hearing that will discuss SOPA, which Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian will be testifying at.
“The freedom, innovation, and economic opportunity that the Internet enables is in jeopardy,” reads an official post published by Reddit administrators on their site. “Congress is considering legislation that will dramatically change your Internet experience and put an end to Reddit and many other sites you use every day. Internet experts, organizations, companies, entrepreneurs, legal experts, journalists and individuals have repeatedly expressed how dangerous this bill is. If we do nothing, Congress will likely pass the Protect IP Act (in the Senate) or the Stop Online Piracy Act (in the House), and then the president will probably sign it into law. There are powerful forces trying to censor the Internet, and a few months ago many people thought this legislation would surely pass. However, there’s a new hope that we can defeat this dangerous legislation.”
Reddit users have rallied for other causes online as of late, attracting thousands of comments over such issues as the National Defense Authorization Act. Shutting down their own sight for the sake of protest, though, is a rare move for Reddit.
“Blacking out Reddit is a hard choice, but we feel focusing on a day of action is the best way we can amplify the voice of the community,” add site administrators. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at ZDNet agrees, and acknowledges that Reddit already is the leading social network opposed to SOPA and calls the site a “hotbed” for organizing protests. Many users of the site supported a recent campaign against domain registrar GoDaddy after the company offered their support for SOPA. Though the registrar later rescinded their support for SOPA, a campaign largely amplified by Reddit yielded thousands of account cancellations on GoDaddy.
Other major sites that have rallied against supporters of SOPA include WikiLeaks, which cancelled all of its GoDaddy domains in opposition to their initial alignment with the legislation. Some fear though that it will take much more than just a handful of major sites to make a stink bad enough for Congress to second-guess SOPA.
“Chances are if you’re a regular Reddit user, you’re either tech savvy enough to know the dangers of SOPA, or if not, you’ve at least been reading about it on the site’s front page for months,” writes Paul Tassi on Forbes. “Rather, even though Reddit is a massive site, the industry needs a nuclear option to truly decimate SOPA once and for all. Titans like Google and Facebook need to have a similar blackout, which would reach an audience far, far wider than Reddit’s.”
Tassi adds that Reddit’s maneuver is a good first step, but others must fall in line if they want to ensure a success.
“A blackout of the internet’s biggest sites would seal the deal automatically, and we could be free of this nonsense for good,” writes Tassi.
submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market
NDAA Protests End In Ironic Swarm Of Arrests
The absurdity of America today never ceases to amaze. In fact, it has become so elaborate that one might even suggest it has reached a kind of poetic symmetry. When a protest group is willing to stick their necks out to expose the horror of the National Defense Authorization Act and its open door strategy for unconstitutional arrest and indefinite detainment of American citizens, I have to stand up and applaud. This is the kind of protest we need to see all over the country. Of course, any establishment system which is willing to dissolve the inherent liberties of its citizens certainly isn’t going to stand by quietly while they blatantly point out the injustice. The Grand Central Terminal action featured in the video below is a perfect example of the swift and immediate stifling of peaceful dissent by an increasingly totalitarian government:
Responses to the event vary. Most people who have actually been exposed to the facts on the NDAA have expressed utter disgust and fury. Rightly so. Some, however, have taken the old elitist mantra, perpetuated effectively by the Neo-Cons in their heyday, that if you are not for the system, then you are a danger to society. Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of useful idiots out there buzzing about like parasites in search of blood.
For those who would applaud these arrests, and suggest that they are well deserved, I would have to ask very pointedly; why?
Is it right to crush free speech as long as the message is offensive to you personally? Do peaceful protestors really present a legitimate threat to our national stability? Are they truly more dangerous than a corrupt government hellbent on assassinating the legal protections of our natural rights which have existed for centuries? Would any supporter of the jackboot methodology like to explain to me in a coherent manner why they believe their skewed world view should be shielded from sincere questions? Please, I can’t wait to witness the kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics required to make such arguments palatable. If this kind of ignorance wasn’t so destructive, it might actually be entertaining.
The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter if these activists were in Grand Central Terminal, on the streets, or busting through the doors of the Oval Office. While New York authorities will attempt to argue property loopholes in free speech protections for Grand Central, or national security because of the vulnerability of the terminal, really, this has nothing to do with either. This is about the removal of American voices from a room, and nothing more. If the message is going to be suppressed by the mainstream media, and shrugged off by representatives, then protesters must go to where the people are, and make the truth heard by whatever means necessary.
Ultimately, activism is about disturbing people’s normal mundane routines and shocking them out of their pop-culture stupor, even if for a moment. If we aren’t allowed to do that without constant police intervention, then the First Amendment is not being served, and then, my friends, we have a problem, a problem which should be forced down the throat of government with even more public action.
In his weekly phone message to supporters, yesterday, Texas Republican Congressman and currently GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”
Paul said, “The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”
Paul then targetted Obama directly, saying, “The President’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely, even on American soil, is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores. The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”
Two bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives to strike President Obama's Hitler Enabling Law provisions embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act passed last week on President Obama's insistence, as shock spreads within the House over the implications of what they, themselves, have done.
The first, H.R. 3676, was introduced while debate was still ongoing on the NDAA on Dec. 15, by Rep. Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican from Louisiana; the second, H.R. 3702, was introduced the next day by Democrats Rep. Garamendi of California and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. The text of both bills, like Sen. Feinstein's similar bill in the Senate, is short and direct.
H.R. 3676's two operant paragraphs are summarized in its title: "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 III of the Constitution of the United States."
Landry stated that he introduced his bill "to guarantee our citizens their most basic rights under the Constitution," adding that "I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and chamber will join my call for liberty." H.R. 3676 was introduced with 19 co-sponsors, but by today, the number had grown to 27, 22 Republicans and five Democrats. All of the Democrats are members of the Black Caucus, including caucus chair Emmanuel Cleaver. Rep. Landry told The Hill yesterday that he had extracted a committment that the Armed Services Committee would hold hearings on the proposed bill early next year, he hopes in January, so that it can quickly move to the House floor.
H.R. 3702, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, seeks "to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and for other purposes." It was presented by sponsors Garamendi and Heinrich (both members of the House Armed Services Committee) as a companion bill to Senator Feinstein's Senate bill of the same name. Its twelve other co-sponsors, all joining on the day it was introduced, are all Democrats, and include Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, to which this bill was referred.
In announcing their bill, Rep. Garamendi stated that "we cannot allow our basic rights to be lost, and there is no legitimate national security reason to deny any citizen in America a trial. We can both keep America safe and maintain our liberties." For his part, Rep. Heinrich emphasized that the detainee provisions "are at complete odds with the United States Constitution. It is time we restore the proper balance between individual liberties and national security."
Triple Lutz Report
The Financial Survival Network
There’s been a lot of controversy in the non-mainstream media concerning the latest iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, specifically the provisions of Senate Bill 1867 (Indefinite Detention). The law was passed by the full congress after several modifications concerning detention of enemy combatants. Without a full reading of the full statute, I too was alarmed, especially after it was passed with so little fanfare. However, this controversy appears to be much ado about nothing. A closer examination reveals that this is effectively a modification of the orginial Authorization to Use Military Force that was passed on September 18, 2011, in the aftermath of the 9-11 Attacks. The language of the statute deals directly with al Qaeda and Tale-ban members/associates. There appears to be nothing in the statute to expand it’s applicability to members of FreeRepublic.com, RedState.com or other right thinking sites. While there certainly is a potential for abuse, as we have witnessed with the Patriot Act on numerous occasions, on its face this law doesn’t appear to be the final death knell to the US Constitution.
Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market
There are those today who would claim that the lifeblood of a nation is dependent upon the graces of its government. That government is the focal point of cultural growth, and that we as citizens should respect it as such. I would be more inclined to agree if the public did not so easily confuse the ideals of leadership with the actions of criminals. That is to say, regardless of what we wish our government to be, bureaucracies rarely, if ever, embody the spirit of the common man (a necessity for any system that purports to defend the citizenry). Instead, bureaucracies almost inevitably deteriorate into vehicles for the perpetuation of tyranny driven by the very worst of all stewards; elitist minorities with delusions of godhood.
Unfortunately, despite this fact, the masses often treat these industrious vermin and the plagues of society that they build with the same reverence as they would a sincere and honorable body politic.
Government is not nor has it ever been a foregone conclusion. Government is not concrete. It is not tangible. It is not the foundation of society. Instead, government is an abstraction; a fantastic dream of collectivist paternity in the face of individual hardship. Those who fear to wander the world on their own courage, strength, and merit, seek to elevate and empower “decision makers” to provide the comfort of limited liability. Through this process, governments are created out of thin air. All governmental authority is, thus, HANDED to those in positions of leadership. What makes one man a “king” and another man a “peasant”? Only the people of a country, and where they choose to place their personal control; in their own hands, or the hands of others.
To put it simply, there is no power over us but that which we give away, and no freedom lost, that cannot be regained.
Until this reality is understood, consecutive generations of human beings will be left to wonder astonished at the endless atrocities of governments they thought they could trust. The truth is, no government, no matter how seemingly noble, deserves our full faith. All governments must be treated like storehouses of aging dynamite; with extreme vigilance, care, and suspicion, because, it is in the very nature of centralized power to sink towards destabilization and disaster.
The American dynamic was meant to be different. For the first time in history, a group of people organized an administrative body which was predicated upon the will of the general populace and not the will of the incorporated elite. The Constitution was the first legal document designed to LIMIT the power of government, not endlessly exonerate it. Though many in our modern age have become completely ignorant of its original intent, the Constitution and its written protections allowed for the first decentralized government of the Western world, if not the entire world. A government which was specifically tasked with shielding the rights of the individual beyond the desires of the mindless “majority”, or the normally influential aristocracy.
Obviously, we have strayed far and away beyond the schematics set forth by the founding fathers.
Let us finally be honest with ourselves and say it out loud; our government is not Constitutional! It has become a mutation. A monstrosity. A malformed creature given birth by the oozing genetic material of mad social scientists hell bent on dominating the building blocks of our political life. It is a thing to be abhorred, not admired, and certainly not to be trusted.
The statement above may be confusing to those who have relegated their concerns to the immediate. If one is free to walk about the streets, keep a job, have a drink, and settle in front of his television for hours on end, then what is there to be worried about? If he is not directly affected by the ill notions of men in far off banks and capitols, then why care at all? If the pain of government criminality only strikes people from “other” cultures, or other walks of life, why be concerned? For those who actually suffer from this brand of idiocy, I can only relate the unwarranted role that our government has assumed within our society and hope that they begin to realize how extraordinarily unsafe they really are. The injustices visited upon the few are invariably visited upon the many in time, especially where a rogue government resides.
The kind of intrusion by government allowed by the American people today is utterly astounding. Bank records, medical records, political viewpoints, phone conversations, emails, child rearing practices, food eating habits, health pursuits, social networking habits, biometric data, travel; nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government anymore.
At what point did we as a nation decide that the government’s opinion of the domestic ideal should become the precedent? At what point did we decide that a faceless bureaucracy knows better than we do what is best for us? When did our lives become an open book to be read at the government’s leisure?
I say “we decided”, because we must bear a large part of the blame. From the institution of the Patriot Acts, to the utilization of the FISA domestic spying bill, to the latest monitoring and cataloging by the DHS and the Federal Reserve of private internet activity, we have stood by and done little to nothing in response.
The argument put forth by establishment proponents has always been that the government’s task is to keep us safe. In order to do this, they say, there can be nowhere for “evil doers” to hide. Therefore, the privacy of every individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number. This argument is unabashed nonsense.
Governments do not keep people safe. Governments are historically predisposed to ending far more lives than they protect, especially when they have strayed from their original mandates. When a government goes rogue, or has been honed as a tool for control rather than defense, its directives lean towards self preservation, not the preservation of the public. That is to say, the government and those who directly benefit from its manipulation set policies that ensure their own safety, and no one else’s.
Without a doubt, all the anti-4th Amendment legislation that has been passed over the course of last decade is focused not on some sinister force, foreign or domestic. Instead, it has been focused on average American citizens, because, whether we want to admit it or not, the government sees US as their greatest enemy.
There was a time when even I would have considered this view as a bit “extreme”. However, I would now have to point out the introduction of bills and executive orders like the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which essentially erases Posse Comitatus and allows for Martial Law to be instituted with extreme prejudice under executive authority:
As well as the attempted passage of the Enemy Belligerents Act, which would allow for the capture, torture, and indefinite incarceration of American citizens as “enemy combatants:
Not to mention the National Emergency Centers Act which allows for the detention of civilians in military and FEMA run facilities:
Or the Obama Administration’s continuance of Bush doctrine which allows for the assassination of U.S. citizens designated as “enemy combatants”:
And most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act, a defense spending action which is being used to coattail legislation which decimates all Constitutional checks and balances and leaves the door open for the government to declare any region they wish a “combat zone”. These provisions are just a rewritten combination of the Enemy Belligerents Act (both bills were fostered by the hand of John McCain) and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, giving government free reign to designate any person, even an American citizen, as an enemy combatant. This means that anyone, including you, could one day be detained without Habeas Corpus, without fair trial, without due process, without legal representation, forever. Period.
You think rendition only occurs in Middle Eastern hellholes? Think again. With these bills and others like them, the American public is now fair game.
Rationalizations for the above actions abound. Some of the most common naïve positions include the following:
1) Assassinations Against Al Qaeda Agents, Even If They Are American Citizens, Is Justifiable
The nature of the target is irrelevant to the principle underlying the situation. I don’t care if Anwar al-Awlaki was an agent of Hades, the conscience of a country must take precedence over the short term threats that country faces. If a society is unable to maintain its conscience and its principles in the face of hardship, then perhaps that society is not worthy of survival. There are, indeed, many more important things than national security.
This is how all tyranny begins; with a small group or element of a culture singled out for the loss of human rights, while the rest of the people look on and cheer. Eventually, the exception to the rule becomes the rule, and everyone suffers. Under no circumstances should our government be allowed to rewrite Constitutional protections or our moral compass, even if it means giving so called “terrorists” fair treatment under the law. Never forget, the term “terrorist” is as arbitrary as any nowadays, and could be used against you as easily as it could be used against anyone else.
2) The Domestic Realm Is A Haven For “Homegrown Terrorists”
Again, “homegrown terrorism” is a highly arbitrary label. If one looks at statements and white papers coming from the Department Of Homeland Security, or the Department Of Justice, anyone from Constitutionalists, to Ron Paul supporters, to militia members, to barter networkers and sound money proponents, or anyone who even expresses an interest in any of these subjects, is considered a potential domestic terrorist threat.
Where is this headed? Think about it. If these types of people are already being categorized as extremists, what’s to stop the government form categorizing them as enemy combatants?
3) Rendition And Torture Could Save Lives
Okay. Let’s say for the sake of argument that rendition and torture actually could save some lives, though I have never heard of any of these Jack Bauer moments taking place in the real world. Let’s say my life and those I love could be spared. Frankly, I would rather die than be a party to behavior as reprehensible as kidnapping and torture. I couldn’t care less about the theoretical benefits of the activity. As stated earlier, a nation hanging by the poisonous framework of moral relativism is doomed to failure and decay. Despite the propaganda often spread by elitist elements without our government, our military, and our local law enforcement, you DO NOT need to become the monster in order to defeat the monster. This lie should not be allowed to stand…
4) You Are “Overreacting” To The Legislation, And Americans Will Not Be Targeted
Senator Lindsay Graham, a backer of the National Defense Authorization Act, specifically outlined the bill’s jurisdiction over American citizens and even admitted it makes the U.S. itself a “combat zone” under the international laws of war (while at the same time presenting the lie that Federal due process would somehow be enforced for those who are captured). We who oppose the bill could do a lot more without being rightfully accused of “overreaction”. If Americans are not to be targeted, then why create the bill in the first place? Traditional laws of war would be more than sufficient to handle foreign threats, and domestic response agencies like the FBI could easily continue doing whatever it is they supposedly do to safeguard our country. The ONLY reason to introduce a bill which frees the U.S. Government and the DHS to act militarily within the borders of our own nation would be to target U.S. citizens, and to undermine normal Constitutional processes.
The legislation is self-incriminating. Only a complete dullard would argue otherwise.
5) The Government Is A Body Elected By The People, Therefore They Are One And The Same
The only practical explanation I can think of for someone to actually believe this argument is overmedication. Despite what we’re all taught in middle school, our government as it exists today and has for many decades does not represent the will of the people. Two dominant political parties with cosmetic differences in rhetoric but nearly identical legislative platforms and voting records is not an expression of a legitimately free republic. The system revolves around corporate ideologies of globalization, not elections. Its beneficiaries are a limited and powerful fringe of society, not the masses. It is a rigged game. A fake battle between two gladiators owned by the same Caesar. To say that the people and the government are one-in-the-same is a gross error in judgment.
After researching and acknowledging the course our government has taken, the question then arises; what is the ultimate end result? Barring multiple miracles of a complete economic turnaround, full third party inclusion in our political structure, the deconstruction of the Federal Reserve, the decentralization of financial influence, the reintroduction of Constitutional insulation degraded since 2001, and the complete pullback of troops involved in ongoing wars in the Middle East, there can be only one outcome: total conflict.
We did not create this division. The American people did not ask to be targeted. Though we certainly have not done enough to fend off the numerous attacks upon our general liberties, the root of the problem still lay within the core of our government, the puppet leaders who abuse it, and the corporate elitists who use it as a staging ground for personal agendas. We have become two separate groups that cannot and will not be reconciled. The government is openly admitting this through legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act. Its time we did the same.
When two forces diametrically opposed exist upon the same ground at the same time with the same force of will, war erupts. A war of philosophies, a war of dissent, and sometimes, a war of weapons. As unsettling as that might sound, we must take solace in the fact that we at least fight for what is honest. If every American must conform to the twisted path our government has chosen, or be branded an ‘enemy combatant”, then may we all become domestic threats in our own backyard.