The Constitution Verses Tyranny

Overall Contents for All Blogs and Posts

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com/

  Most posts are alphabetized by subject starting at the bottom of each blog except for the first one.  To get a feel of the overall intent of the blogs and posts please read the first post below. 

Introduction and an Idea of how to navigate through the blogs and posts.

Contents for Sources of Funding for New World Order

From Soft to Hard Tyranny  

Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 1

Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 2

Contents for Health Care Trends  

Contents for Hidden Powers, Hidden Interests

Introduction

Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 1

Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 2

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart2.blogspot.com/

Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 3

National Debt

The above 3 posts Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward a New World Order, Part 1, 2 and 3 contain just the links from all the posts with very little political commentary or analysis.

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart3.blogspot.com/

News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 1

News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 2

Quotes Over Time About Monetary Policy and Banking and Finance in Relationship to Liberty and Tyranny

Slow Response/Gulf Oil Spill

Social Security and Other Entitlements

Solutions

Symbols of Occult Power

The Modern Art and Science of Enslaving Others

The Constitution Verses Tyranny

The Relationship Between The Military Industrial Media Complex, Defense Spending, Semi-permanent and Permanent War and the Rise of Tyranny  

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart4.blogspot.com/

Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 1

Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 2

Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 3

The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 1

The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 2

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart5.blogspot.com/

Barter and Local Currency Survey

Members, Activities and Meetings

http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart6.blogspot.com/

The War on Food

The War on Food Part  2  This section has a lot more in depth scientific studies.

In all the blogs the titles for each of the articles are colored coded red, orange, green or black based on my subjective belief of how likely they are to be true.

Red title and bold font means I believe the article is very likely to be true and is very important!

Red title and regular font means I believe the article is very likely to be true but is less important.

Orange title and bold font means the article is likely to be true and is important!

Orange title and regular font means the article is likely to be true but is less important.

Green title and bold font means I believe the article could be true and is very important!

Green title and regular font means I believe the article could be true but is less important.

Black title and bold font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity.  However it is important!

Black title and regular font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity or truthfulness.  It is of lesser importance.  

The Constitution and Tyranny

Are there 3 Equal branches of Government?/Greenspan

and Obama                                                                     1 

Birth Constitution and the Presidency                            2

The Constitution Has Been Subverted for a Long Time   2

Indiana Supreme Court Eats Away at 4^th Amendment      3

Supreme Court Exceptions to 4^th Amendment                 3

National Emergency/Constitution Suspended Since 1933 3

Executive Orders May Also Upset the Balance of Powers Between the Three  Branches of Government                                   6

Has Obama and Prior Presidents Violated Constitution?/  John Justice Interviews Senators John Kyle and John McCain         7                                        

The 14^th Amendment Calls for no Questioning of the National Debt          9

Unalienable versus Inalienable Rights                         10 Senator Lindsey Graham, General Petraeus Call For Limits on First Amendment      10

U.S. Alters Policy on Departing Immigrants and the Constitution 10
2011 Defense Authorization Act Damages or Destroys the Fifth and Six Amendments Of the Constitution                 13     Gingrich Wants Executive Branch to have Right to Abolish Courts!  18            

Defense Secretary/Leon Panetta/International Permission Trumps Congress in Foreign Policy   19

The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown Down!  What Are You Going to Do About It?  Executive Order 3/17/2012  20
Disgusted ICE Agent Faces Down ‘Gang of Eight’ in Dramatic Senate Testimony (Video)    20
Eroding Constitution The Killing of Americans Without Judicial Review  21 

Is 14^th Amendment to Constitution Constitutional?

14^th Amendment ratified July 28^th 1868 but was it properly ratified by ¾ of the states as required by the Constitution.  Testimony in the Congressional Record-House on June 13, 1967. http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/rarick.pdf

Many Taxes Unconstitutional in Early Republic

http://www.sheriffbrigadesofpenn.com/wp-content/CSBP/Not_Yours_to_Give_-_Davy_Crockett.pdf

Are there 3 branches of Government?/Greenspan and Obama

In my schooling I was taught that one of the strengths of United States government is that it is composed of 3 branches (The judicial, legislative and executive).  The beauty of the system is that each branch acts as a counterbalance to the other 2 branches so no branch can over power the other 2 branches.  According to the former chairman of The Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, The Federal Reserve Banking System is not accountable to any of the 3 branches of government!  Watch Jim Lehrer interview Greenspan on 9/18/2007 during the Lehrer News Hour on public television. http://www.myvidster.com/video/9603/Greenspan_Admits_The_Federal_Reserve_Is_Above_The or you can go to you tube and type in Greenspan Admits The Federal Reserve is Above The Law & Answers To No One and the 9 minute video will come up.

 On the PBS.org website you can type in Jim Lehrer interviews Alan Greenspan on 9/18/2007 and get the transcript of the interview. 

Page 2

If you still have you doubts listen to what Barack Obama says about the Federal Reserve as president elect when someone ask him to give his opinion about one of Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke’s decisions.  Here is his quote, “I don’t think it’s good policy for the president or president elect to second guess the Fed which is an independent body.”  Go ahead and google the quote if you don’t believe it.

Birth, the Constitution and the Presidency

The Birthers may be correct.  According to the Constitution only a natural born citizen of the United States can be President.  Maybe Barack is not a natural born citizen according to Michelle Obama.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME

Here is something else she said. During a December 2007 speech in Tampa Florida, Michelle Obama stated, “What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.”  (MY NOTE:  This is HUGE!  Secondarily I note that she refers to Africa AS A COUNTRY instead of a CONTINENT, which is the same mistake that Sarah Palin made.)

These links show the Constitution has been subverted for a long time

Here ya go.... Might save you some time. :)

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/liberty.html discusses legislation that is curtailing the Constitution probably from a Libertarian Christian perspective.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=202496

The United States is none existent. It is an Incorporation. The organic constitution was usurped as articles of incorporation changing "for" to "of" the united States by the Act of 1871.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html#48b
http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

The 14th amendment is illegal and was never ratified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-60wlnCmE&feature=digest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CeifAbUiUE&feature=digest

Page 3

Here is a link from the Jeremiah Project a Christian Libertarian site.  Scroll down a little to the subtitle Dismantling the Constitution and you will be taken to links describing how various amendments have been subverted.  I have not investigated the site as of yet. www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/liberty.html

Indiana Supreme Court Eats Away at 4^th Amendment

In cases where Police illegally enter your home the court ruled that citizens are not allowed to resist. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/05/indiana-trounces-fourth-amendment  Google either Indiana Supreme Court and 4^th Amendment or Supreme Court and 4^th Amendment to be taken to a slew of other articles.

Supreme Court Allows Exception to 4^th Amendment

In cases where police believe that evidence is being tampered or destroyed they are allowed to enter houses without search warrant Supreme Court rules in 8-1 decision. http://www.personalliberty.com/news/high-court-grants-police-an-exception-to-the-4th-amendment-800511198/?eiid=&rmid=2011_05_20_PLA_[P11820120]&rrid=238461665

We Have Been In A State of National Emergency Since 1933 and the Constitution Has Been Suspended
We have been in a state of National Emergency since 1933 which legally usurps the organic government into one of Maritime law and POTUS dictatorial ship. There is no longer a Republic government:

“…Regarding what is known as a State of National Emergency, Paula Demers writes: "According to the United States Constitution, Article 1, only Congress shall make federal law. However, since the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their 'laws' are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The War and Emergency Powers Act enables ... the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_of_national_emergency

From the above link has lots of links describing how the Constitution has been perverted by the government since 1933. 

State of national emergency

Regarding what is known as a State of National Emergency, Paula Demers writes: "According to the United States Constitution, Article 1, only Congress shall make federal law. However, since the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their 'laws' are called Executive Orders (EOs). These EOs, not our Constitution, are what is governing America today. The War and Emergency Powers Act enables ... the president to declare a national emergency, and thereby become a dictator."[1]

"Presidents can also carefully choose their words and declare a war on anything, in order to give them dictatorial control. For example, the War on Drugs makes it possible to use federal authorities, such as FBI, FEMA, BATF, and the military against American citizens. A well-known example is Waco. Another example is Hurricane Opal. After Florida was declared a nation emergency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived on the scene and residents were placed under marshal law (restricted to the point of not going outside their door). When the federal government does this, it is going against the Constitution. The War and Emergency Powers Act is an unconstitutional act on the part of our government, created so that presidents can bypass Congress, and do whatever they choose."[2]

Page 4

"It also makes it possible to do away with posse comitatus in cases of 'emergency'. Posse comitatus is what protects American citizens from the military being used against them."[3]

Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549): In this 1973 official report, the U.S. Senate admits that the Emergency Powers given to the President (Franklin D. Roosevelt) under the pretense of the National Emergency of 1933 have remained in force and that the normal function of the Federal government has been suspended. [93d Congress, SENATE Report No. 93-549, 1st Session]. See War Powers Act.

"When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution..."

▪                Dr. Eugene Schroder (a founder of the American Agriculture Movement) and David Schechter, in their book War, Central Planning and Corporations. The Corporate State, discuss the long-lasting impact of the powers granted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (Public Law 73-10):

"The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 [commonly referred to as the "Farm Bill"], a curse to farmers for so many years, was a key piece of legislation in these emergency powers, for it took the power to coin and regulate money away from congress (as provided in the Constitution) and gave it to the president. Tracing back through the archives, further investigation showed how emergency government was simultaneously implemented in all states through a highly coordinated effort coming straight down from FDR and the federal government. Emergency government, outside the bounds of the Constitution, has now been the norm for more than 64 years, according to the Senate's own study."

Gary North writes: "In 1933, Congressman James M. Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states:

▪                "I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. it means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same."

North says that what Congressman Beck was saying is "that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution."

Page 5

Beck goes on to say:

▪                "But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."

North asks "What bill is Congressman Beck talking about?" Beck is referring to the 1933 "Farm Bill", which was passed by the House of Representatives "by a vote of more than three to one." North points out that, "again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution ... In 1973, in the Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549), the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

North emphasizes that the "Farm Bill" says "that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution." This is further emphasized by the above Emergency Powers Statutes' statement -- "Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been," in fact, "in a state of declared national emergency."

The middle language of the Emergency Powers Statutes states:

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

North adds that "this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933. . . ."

"A majority of people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency..."

▪                Senate Report 93-549 (Introduction) 1973.  Here is a website where it can be found although there are many websites. www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html   It discusses the expansion of executive power through acts of Congress from Lincoln’s time up through 1973 as well as the continuous state of national emergency from 1933 on word.

Page 6

"The President may: Seize property, organize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute Martial Law, seize and control and transportation and communication, regulate operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens".

▪                Senate Report 93-549; Senate Resolution 9, 93d Congress, 1st. Session (III) 1973.

▪                See: Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1, March 9, 1933; Proclamation 2038; Title 12 U.S.C 95(b).

▪                The following Scrib website goes into great detail how the Emergency powers act of 1933 may have stripped us of our Constitutional rights and turned over the control of the people of the united States to the President of the united States.  In the Emergency Act of 1917 the government and President had control over the currency transactions enemies of the united States foreigners but not actual citizens of our country.  In the adapt law of 1933 the president was given power over all currency transactions. www.scribd.com/doc/36279960/A-Special-Report-on-the-National-Emergency-in-the-US

Executive Orders May Also Upset the Balance of Powers Between the Three Branches of Government

▪                Also see Executive Orders.  Here’s a White House website showing some of President Obama’s executive orders. www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/Executive%20Order%2012919  

▪                The following link lists executive orders and lists those executive orders related to national emergencies. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Executive_Orders  All EO’s are printed by the Federal Registrar.  Here is a link to the Federal Registrar.  It has a link to executive orders. www.archives.gov/federal-register/index.html

Currently, the United States remains in a permanent state of national emergency (22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977).

▪                Executive Order 12919[4] dated June 3, 1994, otherwise known as National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness[5][6], was signed by President William Jefferson Clinton.

On October 29, 2003, President George W. Bush continued the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) regarding Weapons of mass destruction for 1 year, with the "national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended."[7]

Page 7

"NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary) A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732."[8]

Related SourceWatch Resources

▪                Defense Production Act of 1950

▪                Homeland defense

▪                Homeland security

▪                Hurricane Katrina

▪                National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

▪                National Security State

▪                War Powers Act

External links

▪                Paula Demers, Government by Executive Order, 1996. Author permission granted for reprints/publishing.

▪                Gary North, Emergency Powers: A History and Analysis.

▪                Document and Legal Footnotes, American Patriots Network.

▪                America's Constitutional Dictatorship, World Newsstand. First published in July 1996 by the North Bridge News.

▪                James M. Beck (1787-1936) Papers, Princeton University Library.

Categories: ‪National security | ‪Civil liberties (U.S.) | ‪Homeland security | ‪HS Needs review

Is the POTUS Constitutional eligibility question really of any importance? 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32825979/Sharon-Rondeau-Interview-With-Mario-Apuzzo-June-9-2010

Has Obama and Prior Presidents Violated Constitution?/John Justice Interviews Senators John Kyle and John McCain

     According to Libertarian and Constitutional sources I have read, when the founders initially wrote the Constitution, the power to declare war was given to the Congress.  Once the Congress declared war the President was given the power to wage war. It was felt by many founders that one person should not have that power to place the nation’s soldiers in harms way.  Madison considered the father of the Constitution, believed that war is the most dangerous enemy of liberty.  That is something to ponder in today’s world of permanent war in our country.

Page 8

    World War II was the last war that Congress formally declared and the President waged.  Somehow since then the American people have allowed their Representatives to change the laws giving our executive branch more power to send soldiers to war without a formal declaration from Congress.  All the wars since World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya have been undeclared wars.  The executive branch decided to go to war and the Congress pretty much rubber stamped the decisions.  Congress briefly asserted its power once the anti-war movement grew strong and defunded the Vietnam adventure putting a stop to that war according to Mark Levin.

     Since World War II, presidents have consulted with Congress before sending troops into these undeclared wars.  However when President Obama sent troops to Libya he eliminated even that charade of pretending that Congress had any authority concerning declaring war.  Two days after the U.N. mandate for a no fly zone over Libya Obama’s executive branch struck Libya without consulting Congress.  This raises an interesting and frightening question.  Have we formally given up our sovereignty by allowing the U.N. Security Council to conduct our foreign policy?  This policy might be palatable if the U.N. were composed of western style democracies such as ours but most member states are not representative governments so why should we give our sovereignty to them?  Perhaps in the New World Order our Congress will be relegated to tending to domestic issues while the U.N. and their hidden interests will control the nation’s foreign policy.

     Senator John Kyle did not seem concerned about the Constitutional ramifications of the recent presidents concerning their increased power to declare and wage war.

     Senator John Kyle did not even raise the issue during his interview with Jon Justice on March 21, 2011.  The last caller to the show raised the issue that President Obama had attacked the Libyans without consulting with Congress.  Past presidents going back to Korea had consulted with Congress before sending troops off to war.  Below I slightly paraphrased Senator John Kyle’s response to the caller.  You can hear the exchange starting at about the 34.30 mark in the podcast.

     “It’s a legitement point in these kinds of activities.  What past presidents have done is to fully brief members of Congress in advance, solicit their advice and then make a decision without any formal action from Congress.  Ordinarily after the fact, Congress ratifies what the President is trying to do, sometimes putting limits on it.  But I don’t think this is a case where the President has to engage the Congress in the War Powers Act, where Congress has to declare war or the action automatically terminates within a certain amount of time.

     Unfortunately the President here did not engage the Congress in advance and the old phrase in the Constitution advice and consent, this President ignores the advice but wants our consent all the time.  He does not consult with us ahead of time but I don’t think this is a Constitutional matter.

http://www.1041thetruth.com/podcast/justiceondemand/118436769.html

Senator John McCain seemed slightly more concerned with Congress’s seeding power to the U.N. to conduct American foreign policy but only slightly more so if you listen to the full interview.  Jon Justice interviewed him on

Page 9

3/22/2011.  However, he definitely alludes to our loss of sovereignty in the following quotes.  The first can be found at the 11:30 mark in the podcast.

     “…In order to get a resolution through the United Nations which seems now to dictate American national security policy they had to agree that it was just for humanitarian purposes…”  The Senator was referring to the No Fly Zone policy passed by the U.N. against Libya.

     The following quote can be found at the 13:15 mark in the podcast.  “…Its unfortunate that we have to have our policy dictated by whatever the U.N. Security Council decides which is Russia and China, but I still think that no fly zone is vital…”

http://www.1041thetruth.com/podcast/justiceondemand/118441214.html

The 14^th Amendment Calls for no Questioning of the National Debt!

I got this information from someone who briefly joined The Audit or End the Fed Group.  On the face of it what this man says seems to be true.  Does anyone else have further information about this person's claims?  I submit my comments and his info below.

Looks like by law we don't have any right to question the debt of the United States.  It’s right there in the 14th amendment.  Makes you wonder if the rights of workers to organize or civil rights that I helped struggled for in my life really make any difference.  Seems to me the way section 4 of the 14th Amendment is worded, if workers rights or civil rights somehow threatened the payment of this national debt then since it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment then the right not to question the debt takes precedent over any other right that would threaten that law.  If that is not a headlock for tyranny, what is?

Now if Representative Paul is as smart as I think he is, he would at least spend some time focused on the 14th Amendment unless he knows something that we missed.  I have read some of his stuff and listened to a few of his videos but this aspect of the debt I have not heard mentioned by him. Has he addressed this issue described below?  Some in the Audit or End the Fed group have extensively studied Ron Paul so I will send your comments with mine and see if anyone else can challenge what you say.  If what you say is correct and it seems to be on the face of it then I and perhaps this group are indeed barking up the wrong tree.  Perhaps we should be focusing on this aspect of the Constitution.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Page 10

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

This is the exact wording of section 4 of the 14^th Amendment passed shortly after the Civil War

If any of you can enlighten me on any information concerning this matter then please do so.

Unalienable versus Inalienable Rights

This is perhaps the BEST explanation of what "unalienable" rights are (vs. "inalienable" rights -- official government websites claim they are the same thing, and THAT IS A LIE!  There is in fact a distinct difference, and the legal citations [Black's Law Dictionary et al] clearly demonstrate that fact.)

It is VERY IMPORTANT that ALL AMERICANS understand the difference between these two terms.

Also, if you think that "States' rights" will trump the feds in protecting your individual rights, think again... It depends on WHICH state you live in and how that state's constitution reads, and that fact is stated on this guy's page.  Check it out!  In Fact, we fought a bloody Civil War to hash out the relationship between state and federal rights.  As far as I can tell Feds usually trump the states.

I also urge you to check out this guy's website; it is FANTASTIC!  He is a rancher in Washington state and has done a beautiful job. His site is all about our RIGHTS and preserving them. Check out his photos of his rose garden and God's country too; they're gorgeous!!

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/UnalienableRightsNew.dwt.asp

Senator Lindsey Graham, General Petraeus Call For Limits on First Amendment  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG2jStgDLcc

U.S. Alters Policy on Departing Immigrants and the Constitution http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576516653574988550.html

     Before discussing this article I would like to attempt a brief history of our recent immigration policy from my perspective.  I listen a lot to the news from different perspectives but I do not claim to be an expert but I think what I am about to say is pretty accurate.

     Back in the Reagan Administration he actually passed an amnesty for millions of people I believe primarily from Mexico allowing them to reside in the U.S. even though they violated our immigration laws and could have been legally deported.  I have heard over and over from many sources that President Reagan passed this amnesty with the understanding that the Congress would pass laws securing our southern border then these laws would be enforced and our country would not be faced with this situation again.

Page 11

     My further understanding is that Congress passed laws that allowed deportation and or prosecution of businesses who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.  However the Federal agencies in the executive branch of the Federal government, charged with the enforcement of these laws, ignored or refused to enforce them.

     States such as Arizona on the front lines of this illegal invasion, frustrated by the lack of Federal help, created laws as far as I can tell mirroring Federal immigration laws allowing their law enforcement agencies the power to enforce the Federal laws.

     The Obama Administration sued Arizona stating that immigration enforcement is not a power of the states but can only be enforced by Federal agencies frustrating many in the states because plenty of evidence and documentation exist that the Federal agencies will not enforce the laws on their books.

     There have been many allegations that Federal agencies do not enforce existing laws but they are actually allowing through their policies, back door amnesty for illegal aliens who have committed no other felonies.  Two articles on page 16 of the file Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order provide some government documents and government officials working for the agencies whom are charged with border security and they claim that their agencies are not enforcing existing immigration laws!  Specifically the present director of ICE John Morton sent a memo to his agents known as the Discretionary Memo basically instructing prosecutors to only prosecute illegal aliens who have committed felonies that are deemed a threat to our national security.  Within the articles are links to the memo but if you google John Morton’s Discretionary Memo you will get hundred if not thousands of links some taking you to the memo.

     In the Friday August 18, 2001 Wall Street Journal article titled, U.S. Alters Policy on Deporting Immigrants, the journal comes right out and claims that Obama is directing his agencies to only deport those illegal immigrants committing felonies.  The administration is reviewing 300,000 deportation cases and openly states that most of them, he may throw out based on I believe the previously mentioned Discretionary Memo.  The administration’s rationale for this new stance is that because of budgetary problems there simply are not enough dollars or agents to go after the millions of illegal aliens residing in our nation thus to save on scarce resources they now will only focus on felons or those deemed as national security threats.

     I don’t know the exact dates but I know that the second Bush Administration and the Obama Administration attempted to pass pretty liberal immigration and possibly amnesty laws but Congress did not bite and these bills have failed.  It looks like he can start a somewhat scaled down amnesty program through presidential executive order if the American Citizens allow it.  Here are my questions?  Are his actions Constitutional and is the Constitution important or relevant anymore?

      Again I have some knowledge of how the Constitution works but I was educated in a time where not much time was spent on it so I am going to explain what I understand and I think it is fairly accurate as far as it goes.  I was taught the Constitution provides for 3 branches in the Federal government called the executive, legislative and judicial branches and power

Page 12

is pretty much equally divided among the branches with the president or executive branch being allowed a little bit more power in times of emergency for limited amounts of time.  The legislative branch has the power and authority to pass laws and the president has the power to OK or sign the law or veto it. If the legislative branch has 2/3 or more members that disagree with the presidential veto then they can over rule the president.  However if the judicial branch decides that the law is unconstitutional then laws can also be voided or vetoed.  The president as the leader of the executive branch only has the power to enforce the laws that the legislative branch has passed and he has signed as long as the judicial branch has also approved the law.

     As far as I can tell the American people and their representatives in the legislative branch in clear terms have told the executive branch that they do not wish to give the present illegal immigrants in our society amnesty.  The President has spoken and told the legislative branch he is only going to enforce a very limited section of the law only deporting dangerous criminals.  I believe this is a gross over reach of executive power as defined by our Constitution.  Just so you Democrats don’t feel maligned I believe George W. Bush also overstepped his Constitutional powers and may have performed other criminal impeachable acts as many presidents before him in both political parties.

     In my short life I have found all the presidents seemingly to be kind personable human beings who I would love to talk to and get to know better.  I do not feel it is my place to assign intent as to whether they are malevolent or benevolent.  I do believe we have a very flawed and yet valuable beyond measure document called the Constitution.  My teachers, leaders and others I respected proclaimed the Constitution was a great document and I am told that our leaders take an oath to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic.  Nobody ever discussed with me, or anyone else I know that it really is obsolete and we need to discard it.  I would have had an open mind and discussed and eventually voted on whether I wanted to keep it, alter it or throw it out but nobody talked to me!  That is why I am angry because they have slowly destroyed it behind my back and now it is basically defunct.  I have been lied to, violated and raped as far as I am concerned so now I will defend it to the death because they took it away from me without my consent!

      These are my words to MY President duly elected by the American people from one man to another.  I came into this world thinking I was God’s gift that I knew better than everybody and God have I had that beaten out of me.  I made lots of mistakes, I hurt a few people intentionally and maybe a lot unintentionally so you being a Constitutional Lawyer if the opportunity ever arose I would definitely listen to your side of the story and try to understand why you have taken the actions you have.  But the world being the way it is, I would be shocked and amazed if you found the time to talk to me.

     Having said this, I believe you have betrayed our Constitution and are actively taking actions to destroy it.  As a very imperfect human I know it’s easy to make mistakes yet I believe you and many others are bringing great harm to us.  I ask you to rescind your policy concerning Libya because you 

Page 13

violated our Constitution by not consulting with Congress before attacking that nation.  I ask you to also rescind your policy allowing your executive agencies to grant amnesty to people who come to our nation in violation of our immigration laws passed by the legislative branch.  You and others sincerely tried to convince the legislative branch and the people that it is in their best interests to grant these people amnesty.  The people through their legislatures have spoken several times voting that they do not wish to grant the illegal immigrants amnesty.  By our Constitutional system they are the ones given the power to create the laws.  You do not have the right to subvert the will of the legislature by nullifying their laws using your executive power and executive agencies in my humble layman opinion.

     If at any point you realize the harm you have done and defend the Constitution until such time as we as a nation decide to alter or abolish it I would immediately request that all charges be dropped against you for as a human all people are capable of redemption and despite the horrifying actions you have taken you are entitled to dignity as a human being.

     Until such a time however, those Americans who value their rights, liberties and freedoms have no choice but to insist that the House of Representatives bring impeachment charges against you for if I am correct you have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in that your actions are destroying our Constitutional form of government without our consent!

    If you are allowed to get away with these gross abuses of power against our legislative branch what is the point of having a Congress?  If they are no longer relevant to determine where our troops fight and if you have the authority to alter or abolish the laws they pass without their consent, what is the point in having a Congress?  Let’s get rid of them with are present budgetary problems we could save a lot of money.

     My dear fellow countrymen, you have allowed the past presidents far to much power.  If you allow President Obama to fully take away the legislative power to create laws then your poor children and grandchildren will inherit the tyranny that you deserve.

     Many have died and are still dying so we can one day have a government of, for and by the people.  Please do whatever you can to reclaim our power which is only rightfully ours if we are willing to take it back and defend it.

Thank you

2011 Defense Authorization Act Damages or Destroys the Fifth and Six Amendments Of the Constitution

I have evidence that the following amendments of the Bill of Rights are being eroded, compromised or endangered.  The portions underlined are most endangered by the present Defense Authorization Act about to be passed by Congress in the next day or two.  Please insist they not pass the bill in its present form tomorrow Thursday December 1^st, 2011.

Page 14

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentation or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life liberty or property, with out due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him: to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Overview

If the Defense Authorization Bill is passed in it’s present form with Sections 1031 and 1032 unchanged along with other aspects of the bill, by law all parts of the nation will be part of the battlefield and we will by law be at war.  Under these conditions by the rule of war, and the 5^th Amendment above, people can be held without trial (basically as prisoners of war) until such time as the war is over.  Being that the war on terror could last a very long time, you don’t want this law to pass.  Below I present the evidence for my case,  I beg you to please read it!

I finally found section 1031 in the Defense Authorization Bill expected to be passed by Congress.  It is hidden in the bill.  I can see why!  First go to the Library of Congress link at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:  This first link is the contents page for the entire defense authorization act that is expected to be passed by the Senate Thursday 12/1/2011.  It has various links to all the sections of this approximately 680 page bill that would probably take weeks to read.  Go about half way down the bill to Title X General Provisions.  Underneath Subtitle D click on Detainee Matters.  It takes you straight to section 1031.   Here is a direct link to Section 1031. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c11291WuWk:e462417:   I am surprised because yesterday when I first looked at the first link containing links to the entire bill, section 1031 was nowhere to be found.  However right under Detainee Matters was section 1032.  I guessed that perhaps section 1031 was hidden in the link called Detainee Matters and when I clicked on that link section 1031 is right at the top.

Yesterday when I looked at the first link of the whole bill, I saw Section 1032 but no Section 1031.  I figured maybe they took out that section because of the outcry from civil liberties groups.  In section 1032, it seems to say the 

Page 15

American Citizens cannot be seized by the military but the language upon closer inspection seems tricky in part B.  Here is what it says.

   B) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The Requirement to detain a person in     
              military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the  
              United States.

        (2)  LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person i
               in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful 
               resident alien of the United States on the

               basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
               extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

               

       

My question in Section 1032 refers to the underlined words under this section, could these words be interpreted to mean these specific rules only apply to Section 1032 of this bill?  If so then the President or his designee might determine under Section 1031 which I will cover next, that they can seize Americans without trial until hostilities with terrorists cease.

I found a statement by Senator Lindsey Graham on CSPAN 2 5:29 P.M. uploaded 11/29/2011, that validates my hunch.  Under section 1032 American Citizens and Resident Aliens cannot be seized by the military.  However under Section 1031 American citizens can be seized by the military and held without trial if the military believes that the American citizen aided the enemy as described in Section 1031.  According to the Senator, Joseph Padilla an American citizen, was held by the military for several years without trial and the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the military to hold him because they deemed him to be an enemy combatant being a threat to the military.  Thus the precedent, for the military to seize and hold American citizens, without due process and trial has been upheld by the American courts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34   If this link becomes unusable Google You are the terrorist!!!!!

Let’s look at some provisions of Section 1031 that are even scarier than those found in Section 1032.
 (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

  (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly 

Page 16

supported it's coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of enemy forces.

(c) D             

             

    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law

         of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

        (1)  Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities

              authorized by the Authorization of Use of Military Force.  SEE the statement 
              of  Senator Graham in regard to the American citizen, Jose Padilla

There are several possible dispositions for such accused individuals but I will focus on the first since it is the most glaring and has already happened with enemy combatants but not American citizens as far as I know.  Let’s pretend that we attacked Iran.  This might be happening as I write.  Let’s presume a short time later various cities are attacked by terrorists, resulting in millions in casualties.  The United States declares war and soon we are embroiled in WWIII throughout the Middle East.

Let’s further assume I am against the war because I have documented evidence that elements in the government aided the terrorists to manipulate our people into this horrific costly war.  I begin sharing my evidence and before long I have a following that support my view.  The president and/or his designees decide I am aiding and substantially supporting the enemy because my actions are causing more and more people to question the validity of the war.  The fact that elements in the government manipulated us into this war under false pretenses does not matter.  I am breaking the law.  Based on the law as it stands above I am seized and thrown in jail for the remainder of my life without trial.

I no longer have rights because the entire country has been declared a battleground and under the rules of war I am aiding the enemy so I become a prisoner of war until hostilities cease.  How long do you think it will be until I am freed?  How long do you think it will take to end this war on terror?  Senator Lindsey Graham openly admits this as a supporter of the bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34   Also note that if by law the country is declared a battlefield then according to the 5^th Amendment you can be held without an indictment or trial.  Do you trust our government to not abuse that power?

Page 17

The precedents for this possible event have already been established.


The following Oath Keepers link discusses parts of the Defense Authorization Act that they believe are Unconstitutional as well as previous legislation that ties into the 2011 Defense Authorization Act. http://www.livestream.com/wrcg/video?clipId=pla_94796ffb-7b17-4385-aab8-fef8f5395863

Jon Stewart weighed in on the debate. http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill

Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement.  Obama admits detention of Americans without trial by the executive branch can be done but claims his administration will not detain Americans in a way that violates the Constitution.  Does this make you feel better?     http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Obama Administration Employs Controversial 1021 portion of NDAA Act to detain Guantanamo Prisoner Without Trial or Due Process http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/31/obama_administration_employs_controversial_detention_provision_as_legal_defense

The infrastructure for a police state is already in place! http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/frontline-video/

·      http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/

·      Historically, governments are notorious for conducting false flags to manipulate citizens to war.  Google false flag incidents on line.  Much evidence exist that 9/11 may have partially or fully been a false flag incident.  Go to http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com/2011/09/contents-for-government-officials-imply.html  and go to pages 7-10 for many links of Congress members and other high level ranking government officials questioning the official 9-11 investigation. Zero An Investigation into 9/11 (A Full Documentary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ&feature=player_embedded#  This hour and 45 minute video also has many government officials and scientists that disagree with the official 9-11 investigation.

·      Terrorist cells may already exist in our cities or if they can be helped along by’ government false flag incidents to manipulate the American people to go to war.  An Atlanta Georgia Television News Station worked with Congressional Representatives on this investigation.  If the government pulls this video off the internet, perhaps another copy can be found if you Google Who is Really Coming Across the Border, Action News 2, Atlanta Georgia.  http://wrapyourheadaround.com/2011/08/22/congressional-report-reveals-that-1520-of-illegals-crossing-the-mexican-border-are-from-nations-that-sponsor-terror/

 http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com/2011/09/contents-for-government-officials-imply.html  Pages 23-25 has a transcript for the video above.  It is scary information.

Just to add some icing to the cake of concerns I have about the above just passed Defense Authorization Bill consider these two short videos.  The first is a telling exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Senator John McCain concerning indefinite detention of Americans.  In the second 9 minute video, Senator Rand Paul shares his concerns indefinite detention of Americans.         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=youtu.be

I will speak out about this situation as I see it because if enough people become knowledgeable about how our system works perhaps we can change it and avoid some horrible future possibilities.  If you value your liberties and rights please learn what your rights are and defend them.  If you don’t understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights very well as I don’t, please learn about these documents so you will not be tricked out of your 

Page 18

rights..  I implore you to contact your representatives and your friends to demand that the Senate not pass this bill 1867 in it’s present form tomorrow!!1

I pray to God that our leaders and the people of the nations of the world will be given the strength and wisdom to do what is right!

Gingrich Wants Executive Branch to have Right to Abolish Courts!

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/video-watch-the-fox-news-iowa-gop-debate-from-sioux-city/

     Newt Gingrich desires to use executive branch to abolish courts he disagrees with.  Newt also calls for Congress to have subpoena power over judges during the December 15^th Presidential debate.  Gingrich backs up the validity of his argument by claiming that Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt did believe the court overstepped their Constitutional authority and stood up to them.  In Jefferson’s case, he abolished 18 of 32 Federal judges in 1802 that even then was controversial according to the questioner.  Go to 44 minute and 20 second mark to see the exchange between Gingrich, Bachmann and Paul.

     I believe this could be a dangerous expansion of executive and legislative power at the expense of the judicial branch.  The executive branch in recent years has gained much power especially at the expense of the legislative branch.

Page 19

Defense Secretary/Leon Panetta/International Permission Trumps Congress in Foreign Policy

The Constitution of the United States is Gone!

Perhaps long ago while we slept,

they smuggled it away.

Now they come right out and tell us,

It is gone!  Don't worry it is all legal.

Nobody believes them or perhaps are still asleep.

If you want it back you will have to risk everything!

The new boss is the same as the old boss except,

the new boss has far greater power.

That’s the scary part.

They are letting us know below.

Go on take a look, it is only 7 minutes.

‪Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria‬

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84

Welcome to the New World Order.

The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown Down!  What Are You Going to Do About It?  Executive Order 3/17/2012

Seems very similar to NDAA.  With the vast hidden relationship between intelligence agencies, private contractors and large corporations (See Secret America Washington Post Articles) I can see the possibility that Obama could become president for life.  Intelligence agencies could allow Iranian terrorists access to nation, set off nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in cities killing 

Page 20

millions, then Americans would flock to the FEMA camps fearing for their safety.  Shipping millions by trains wouldn't be necessary.  Iranians might not have technological capacity to pull off such a feat.  No problem the intelligence agencies could find a few Iranian souls to pin the blame on but conduct the false flag operation themselves.

Then this executive order can be activated and presto, we can go from soft tyranny to hard tyranny over night.  Don't believe me do your own research.  The White House website has the Executive Order on its website on March 17, 2012.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness  Here are the Washington Post articles. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/  http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/frontline-video/

 All you got to do is do your own research and put 2 and 2 together.  Then you need to decide what role you will play.

Just out of curiosity, I skimmed over all of the executive order and I didn't see Congress or the Courts mentioned in any of the planning implementation or the rescinding of the executive order.  There are no timelines concerning how long the order would be in place.  Note also the heads of the departments, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Defense, Interior etc. are all Executive branch appointees directly responsible to the President of the United States.  What does that tell you?  

Can't pussy foot around with you anymore.  The predators and parasites are openly announcing what they plan to do.  What are you going to do as they implement this plan?

Disgusted ICE Agent Faces Down ‘Gang of Eight’ in Dramatic Senate Testimony (Video)

     Chris Crane ICE union chief representing over 7,000 agents,testified before Congress about immigration reform.  If his data is valid the executive branch has overstepped it authority by choosing not to enforce parts of immigration law instituted by the Congress.  The Constitution chose congress to write the laws, the executive branch lead by the President to enforce the laws and the judicial branch is given the power to determine if laws are Constitutional.  A Federal judge agrees and has told DPS that it has no power to refuse to depart illegal aliens.  I placed this article in this section because I believe it is another example, of the executive branch of our Federal government eroding the power of Congress.  Here are some highlights of what he stated in the video

▪                http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2013/04/27/disgusted-ice-agent-faces-down-gang-of-eight-in-dramatic-senate-testimony/

▪                ICE Agents are no longer allowed to arrest illegal aliens solely for illegal entry or expired visas.

▪                Illegals must now be convicted of 3 or more criminal misdemeanors before agents are permitted to charge or arrest them for illegal entry or overstaying a visa.

▪                Illegal aliens need only claim they meet Obama's new criteria to be released - even if they are lying or cannot produce documentation.

▪                Illegals who have assaulted Federal agents have been released - after merely claiming they meet Obama's new guidelines against enforcement.

▪                ICE agents or officers who witness a violation of immigration law are prohibited from making arrests and even from asking questions “under the threat of disciplinary action.” - including suspension.

Page 21

Eroding Constitution The Killing of Americans Without Judicial Review

When people scream from both the right and the left side of the political system concerning the dangerous erosion of our Constitutional Liberties, you know something is wrong.

NBC News obtained a Department of Justice white paper justifying the killing of American citizens deemed by the military as actively engaged in hostilities against our armed forces or plotting to kill American citizens. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf  The paper is titled Department of Justice White Paper.  Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or an Associated Force.  Here are some issues as a simple layman I found disturbing in the 16 page document.

·      On page 6 on the first full paragraph on the page, it describes that a high level government official decides who is a threat to us; or our military and that government official decides if that person must be killed.  On page 9 in the middle of the last paragraph it states again that a high government official will determine if an American in a foreign country can be killed by lethal force.

·      On page 10 section C., the 1^st paragraph contains the Department of Justice’s justification of why under these circumstances Americans habeas corpus rights are no longer valid.  The DOJ rationalizes that in types of conflicts on foreign soil with Americans who are deemed terrorists by high level government officials the courts are not effective in these types of situations and courts usually give the military great leeway in these affairs.

Jerry Doyle a libertarian leaning conservative, interviewed Jacob Sullum a senior editor of Reason Magazine on The Jerry Doyle Show Wednesday February 6^th.  Here are some of his comments on the document described above

·      Drones are now allowed to kill Americans

·      Last year a drone killed a Yemen government official who negotiated with these terrorists.

·      Officially 17 people were killed in the U.S. by terrorists.  Is this war on terrorism considering these numbers an overreaction?  Unfortunately there is no way to know if the U.S. did nothing, how much higher would the U.S. casualties be.

Conservatives, Constitutionalists and Libertarians are not the only ones concerned with this potential Constitutional erosion of power.  The ACLU and other liberal organizations are also very concerned as shown in this link. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite  It is titled Exclusive: Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans.  According to this 

Page 22

article dated 2/5/13, officials of the Obama Administration under the condition that they keep it confidential handed the confidential DOJ memo to members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in June.  Here are more findings from the article.

·      Americans on foreign soil can be killed by orders from a high government official if they believe that such citizens are senior operational leaders of al Qaida or an Associative Force even if there is no active intelligence showing they are actively plotting to attack the U.S.  See the first paragraph on page 7 of the document starting with the words, “Certain aspects of this legal framework…”

·      Activities that would warrant such a lethal attack are not clearly defined.

·      The idea of imminent threat is given a much broader definition than it ever received in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TDsfkYavCo   If the link does not work google, Eric Holder Defends Legality of Targeted Killings of American Citizens on Foreign Soil.  This clip comes from Democracy Now and shows clips of speeches from both Obama and Holder.  To analyze the administration’s position on targeted killings Democracy Now Interview with the Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.

·      A startling statement by Attorney General Eric Holder is shown in a clip near the middle of the you tube link above and I quote.  “… president is required to get permission from a Federal Court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaida or associated forces.  This is simply not accurate.  Due process and judicial process are not one and the same particularly when it comes to national security.  The Constitution guarantees due process.  It does not guarantee judicial process.”

·      The problem with the above quote according to the ACLU Director although Holder acknowledges the Constitutional right to due process he leaves it up to a high official of the executive branch of the government to be the judge and jury determining whether certain Americans live or die! 

·      In our Constitutional system of government, a series of checks and balances operates between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government  before a person can be deprived of life, liberty and property.  Now that Congress has declared that a State of War exist throughout the nation because of the potential terrorism threat, does that now mean these checks and balances no longer apply and high level officials from the executive branch of our government have become our judges, juries and or executioners?

·      At the 10 minute and 50 second mark in the above video link, President Obama discusses the drone strikes against American citizens and foreign nationals declared terrorists by high ranking government officials.  He claims they are targeted carefully thus 

    Page 23

   avoiding high civilian casualties.  However, he admits there is a list of terrorists targeted for drone strikes. This is despite an executive order banning the assassination of people in other countries.  I presume it would include American citizens.   Attorney General Eric Holder claims that these killings are justified because these people actively or potentially threaten American citizens, can not be easily captured and tried in a court of law; and according to international laws of war our government has a right to kill individuals that threaten American citizens.

·      However, according to ACLU spokesperson the administration has not submitted any legal justification showing the evidence the administration has used to justify any of these killings.  If true, then legal scholars and lawyers have no way to evaluate the administration’s actions regarding these drone killings.  The hiding of these executions under the cloak of national security does not allow the system of checks and balances to work properly and increases the likelihood of tyranny imposed by the executive branch of our Federal government.

In the next clip, now that Americans have accepted that it is OK to kill American citizens on foreign soil with out any habeas corpus or due process, recently the head of the FBI at a hearing on Capital Hill was unable to answer whether it was OK to kill Americans on American soil!  The question should have been easy to answer.  The Constitution that our leaders swear allegiance to emphatically says no.  However, our President and both parties in Congress recently passed The National Defense Authorization Act which gave the executive branch the right to indefinitely imprison or kill any American they deem to be a threat to national security, our Constitution be damned.  I think this interview was on Fox News with judge Napolitano. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YGAUU3umCA  You can also google this link with the following title, Judge Napolitano on Targeted Killing of U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil if the above link changes.  Most Americans consider judge Napolitano pretty far to the right.

Many of the right wing conservative talk shows I listen to consider the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Now as being in league with the devil in that their actions are destroying our nation.  My view is when leaders of groups considered radical but on opposing sides agree on something then something is indeed wrong!