National Defense Authorization Act

Nile Bowie ~ US Elections: The Empty Politics Of Duopoly

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Activist Post | November 9 2012

Barack ObamaAfter months of rhetoric and political campaigning, the smoke has finally cleared on the media frenzy that is the US Presidential Election. Once the winner of the race was announced, supporters at the Obama Campaign headquarters in Chicago jubilantly celebrated.

The haze of American flags, pop music, and confetti worked wonders to mask the absence of any real political substance throughout the election process.

Cheering supporters shouted “four more years” as President Obama took to the stage to deliver his victory speech – complete with highly emotional grandiloquence, two mentions of the US military being the strongest in the world, and of course – a joke about the family dog.

After an exorbitant $6 billion spent by campaigns and outside groups in the primary, congressional and presidential races, Americans have reelected a president better suited for Hollywood than Washington. A 2010 ruling by the US Supreme Court that swept away limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns has paved the way for the most expensive election in American history, in the midst of an economic crisis nonetheless. [1]

In the nation that gave birth to the marketing concept of branding, it is to be assumed that politicians would eventually adopt the same techniques used to promote consumer products – enter Obama.

After eight years under the Bush administration, America desperately needed change. Instead of any meaningful structural reform, America ushered in a global superstar whose charm and charisma not only resuscitated American prestige, but also masked the continued dominance of deregulators, financiers, and war-profiteers.

Obama’s most valuable asset is his brand, and his ability to channel the nostalgia of transformative social movements of the past, while serving as a tabula rasa of sorts to his supporters – an icon of hope who is capable of inspiring the masses and coaxing them into action – despite the Obama administration expanding the disturbing militaristic and domestic surveillance policies so characteristic of the Bush years, and channeling never before seen authority to the executive branch.

Continue reading →

SARTRE ~ Constitution Replaced By Fiat Edicts

~ admin ~ 5 Comments

The rule of law is an empty memory of the past. The powers that rule are globalists that control governments and use their media outlets to write the first version of history. They pull the strings of the intelligence agencies that function as overthrowers of non-compliant regimes. Constitutional restrictions that limit impulsive or capricious dictates formerly protected citizens. With the utter eradication of separations of power and the “Federalist”, form of distinct roles and authority of independent States, the core legitimacy of the United States vanished.As central ascendancy consolidates, the tyranny of the majority becomes obvious to even the most vocal Statist proponent. The reason for this development is well defined. The most wicked and corrupt criminals have hijacked the system and dismantled the checks and balances, placed into the constitutional framework.

However, let us be crystal clear. The original formation of a supreme central government doomed the infant republic to the same fate of all other countries. Most Americans are so deep in denial that they are unable to confront the truth of this conclusion. The legislative, legal and judicial systems are all complicit in the destruction of the independence of individual states. States’ rights are essential and are the original jurisdiction authority that formed a purported limited role for the federal government.

The hedonistic hordes that extend their consent to the dictatorial governance keep voting for more oppression.

A nation of free people endowed in Liberty has become a cesspool of cretins begging for more social welfare benefits and cradle-to-grave guarantees.The reliance of executive orders to circumvent, “The People’s House“, has relegated Congress to a homeless child in a globalist orphanage.

Continue reading →

Simon Black ~ Why Is The US Government Planning For ‘Mass Fatalities’ ?

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

Sovereign Man | October 5 2012

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Late last week, a bill HR 6566 was introduced on the floor of the US House of Representatives. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read it.

The bill is entitled the “Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act,” and its stated purpose is “[t]o amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning…”

Hmmmm. Homeland Security. FEMA. Sounds like a fun party.

The bill was introduced a week ago, but it took the US Government Printing Office until this morning to actually make the text available to the public.

It turns out that my weeklong wait was for nothing. The bill itself is just a handful of paragraphs that merely reiterates the title… that the cracker jack team over at FEMA should be prepared to respond to mass fatalities in the United States, and to account for religious burial differences.

This is just one of those things that makes the stomach turn: the people who brought us the National Defense Authorization Act (authorizing the detention of US citizens on US soil) now deem it prudent to prepare for mass fatalities on US soil…

Moreover, they’re outsourcing it to one of the most failed government agencies in history.

Continue reading →

NDAA Supported By Court ~ Americans Can Be Indefinitely Detained [Video]

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

 | October 3 2012

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that the US government can indefinitely detain anyone under the National Defense Authorization Act. This comes as a blow to the ruling that was given earlier this year, when US District Court Judge Catherine Forrest ruled that the NDAA was unconstitutional. So what does this mean for journalists and why was it overturned? Carl Mayer, attorney for The Mayer Law Group, joins us with the latest.

Related articles

Criminalizing Dissent

~ admin ~ 3 Comments

Truthdig | RS_News | August 13 2012

Barack ObamaOPINION ~ I was on the 15th floor of the Southern U.S. District Court in New York in the courtroom of Judge Katherine Forrest last Tuesday. It was the final hearing in the lawsuit I brought in January against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I filed the suit, along with lawyers Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran, over Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We were late joined by six co-plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg.

This section of the NDAA, signed into law by Obama on Dec. 31, 2011, obliterates some of our most important constitutional protections. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to seize U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists or associated with terrorists. Those taken into custody by the military, which becomes under the NDAA a domestic law enforcement agency, can be denied due process and habeas corpus and held indefinitely in military facilities. Any activist or dissident, whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, can be threatened under this law with indefinite incarceration in military prisons, including our offshore penal colonies. The very name of the law itself – the Homeland Battlefield Bill – suggests the totalitarian credo of endless war waged against enemies within “the homeland” as well as those abroad.

“The essential thrust of the NDAA is to create a system of justice that violates the separation of powers,” Mayer told the court. “[The Obama administration has] taken detention out of the judicial branch and put it under the executive branch.”

In May, Judge Forrest issued a temporary injunction invalidating Section 1021 as a violation of the First and Fifth amendments. It was a courageous decision. Forrest will decide within a couple of weeks whether she will make the injunction permanent.

In last week’s proceeding, the judge, who appeared from her sharp questioning of government attorneys likely to nullify the section, cited the forced internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II as a precedent she did not want to follow. Forrest read to the courtroom a dissenting opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in Korematsu v. United States, a ruling that authorized the detention during the war of some 110,00 Japanese-Americans in government “relocation camps.”

“[E]ven if they were permissible military procedures, I deny that it follows that they are constitutional,” Jackson wrote in his 1944 dissent. “If, as the Court holds, it does follow, then we may as well say that any military order will be constitutional, and have done with it.”

Continue reading →