Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention

http://www.theispot.com/images/source/FredaLibertyUpended1.jpgPainting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

“We Are No Longer a Nation Ruled By Laws”

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges – along with journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist  Tangerine Bolen and others – sued the government to join the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans.

The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys.

The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.

The trial judge ruled that the indefinite detention bill was unconstitutional, holding:

This Court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.

But the court of appeal overturned that decision, based upon the assumption that limited the NDAA to non-U.S. citizens:

We thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 [of the 2012 NDAA] means this: With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful resident aliens, and are not captured or arrested within the United States, the President’s [Authorization for Use of Military Force] authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9/11 as well as those who were a 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—a detention authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original AUMF. But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all.

The court of appeal ignored the fact that the co-sponsors of the indefinite detention law said it does apply to American citizens, and that top legal scholars agree.

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case, thus blessing and letting stand the indefinite detention law stand unchanged.

The court of appeal’s Orwellian reasoning may sound – at first blush -  like it might be a good thing.    After all,  the court said there’s no indication that the indefinite detention provision will be applied against U.S. citizens.

However, by refusing to strike down the law and insist that any future laws explicitly exempt U.S. citizens, it leaves discretion in the hands of the executive branch.

The effect of the decision will be to allow the U.S. government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who protest or dissent against the government … and the courts will never hear any legal challenge from the prisoners.  The detainee will not get to say:

The courts said the indefinite detention law isn’t written to apply to U.S. citizens, so you have to let me go!

And he won’t get to say:

You’re confusing me with another John Smith, and I can prove it!

After all, prisoners can be held under the indefinite detention bill without trial, without being allowed to present evidence or hearing the evidence against them, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen with any crime.

So – if you’re thrown into a hole somewhere – no one will even hear your story.

Chris Hedges noted in November:

If [the indefinite detention law] stands it will mean, as [the trial judge] pointed out in her 112-page opinion, that whole categories of Americans—and here you can assume dissidents and activists—will be subject to seizure by the military and indefinite and secret detention.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead agrees:

No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.

If you think they’re crying wolf,  just remember that the CIA director relabeled “dissidents” as “terrorists”  in 1972 so that he could continue spying on them … and nothing has changed.

Daniel Ellsberg notes that Obama’s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charges or access to a lawyer or the courts is a power that even King George – the guy we fought the Revolutionary War against – didn’t claim.  And former judge and adjunct professor of constitutional law Andrew Napolitano points out that Obama’s claim that he can indefinitely detain prisoners even after they are acquitted of their crimes is a power that even Hitler and Stalin didn’t claim.

Access to justice is already being severely curtailed in America.  Even when the prisoner is afforded a trial,  it is becoming more and more common for the government to prosecute cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant, his lawyer … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.  The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even to assassinate people. And see this and this. Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs. Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret.

But prisoners under the indefinite detention bill have it much worse:  they don’t get any trial or opportunity to talk to a judge, any access to a lawyer … or perhaps any information about what they’re even accused of doing or why they were nabbed in the first place.

After the Supreme Court published its decision, Tangerine Bolen wrote:

The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, first via Citizens United, then most recently via McCutcheon v. FTC, that corporations are “persons” whose “free speech” must be protected at all costs – including the cost of democracy – while our rights – the rights of living, breathing people, the fundamental right of due process and our fundamental rights of free speech and association – those no longer matter. They are to be trampled.

Under the war on terror, the United States government has trampled upon the fundamental human rights of people around the world since 9/11. The Bush administration manufactured a false war based on carefully crafted lies, false evidence and sickening manipulation. In the wake of that war, our courts prefer to continue to defer to a disingenuous national security narrative that has arisen out of the lies, paranoia, and incredible lawbreaking of our own government, including kidnapping, torturing, indefinitely imprisoning, and assassinating people with impunity – all of this against both reason and international law.

We are no longer a nation ruled by laws. [She's right.] We are nation ruled by men who have so steeped themselves in a false narrative that at the same time they are exponentially increasing the ranks of terrorists, they are destroying the rule of law itself. [Indeed, we’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making one-sided laws to protect their own interestsin secret. Government folks are using laws to crush dissent. It’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.] It is madness upon madness – the classic tale of becoming the evil you purport to fight while believing you remain righteous.

We have tried to stand up to this madness: we are outnumbered, outspent, and outgunned – a David intrepidly fighting a Goliath that spans the planet and has the power to shape our “reality” – thus shaping what the courts even see. We have sacrificed greatly to do this – and yet we would do it all again.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    Any decision by a corrupted judicial system in a corrupted government such as the United States, is null and void to its citizens and not to be adhered to.
    If our judicial system WASN’T corrupt, that would be different. You know, like the system they told us (falsely) that it was growing up in school…patriotism…flag waving…etc…. That has to be the place we first were told our judicial system was exceptional and not corrupt.

    • Horst Gunther

      Americans still believe in the paradigm that they are free, when the reality is the opposite and the US Constitution implicitly defines them as subservients.

      Remember that this document is a summarized compendium of Britain’s Common Law, Admiralty Law and Canon Law (under the express guidelines and orders of the Vatican) and the framers wanted to make sure that the ignorant masses living within the circumscribed territories called the United States of America remain under such condition – their ulterior and ultimate goal .

      Additionally, the Act of 1871 made possible for the Vatican to manage more efficiently the Corporation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      In brief, ordinary Americans are indeed less than subjects of the British Crown and dependants of the wishes of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; simultaneously, the Sancta Romana Catholica Ecclesia is their absolute Sovereign and dictates all aspects of their daily lives.

      • Kansas Bright

        We are only as free as we ALLOW those in service to our country; reps, military, LE’s, bureaucracies, etc continue to be Domestic enemies and Traitors to the USA.

        Yes, it IS up to us.

  • wunsacon

    Wait a minute. How do you interpret this?

    >> 1021.(e) Authorities.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to
    >> affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United
    >> States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any
    >> other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

    Doesn’t that mean that sec. 1021-1022 cannot be applied to hold US citizens/residents/persons ?

    Other than them being dickwads, I don’t know why the defendants didn’t accede to Hedge’s request to state the law wouldn’t apply to him.

    • mmckinl

      Did you read the article ???

      • wunsacon

        >> Did you read the article???

        Did my comment and question merit you responding like a jerk?

    • Kansas Bright

      No, read the whole thing.

      Remember the US Constitution is a document of LIMITATIONS and outright “forbiddens” (everything unalienable/inalienable), and defines exactly what the fed gov is allowed to do. If it is not listed in the duties assigned to that branch it is forbidden to them; just like “emergency powers” or “assassination powers”. “Assassination powers” is just First Degree Murder called by another name under the “color of law” (FAKE law) done by someone clothed as if they have authority.

      The US Constitution does not allow for those elected or hired to implement or install “emergency powers”. It is not in their job description, the contract they agreed to when they took the governmental office or position they occupy – elected or hired, military or nonmilitary. The Bill of Rights is a list of further restrictions put upon those who serve or occupy governmental positions; the US Constitution defining exactly what they can do, which restricts, forbids anything else that is not specifically listed there. It does not allow for “executive orders” or “judicial orders” rather IT FORBIDS them in Article I, Section. 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nor does it allow “emergency powers” under whatever pretext those in governmental positions would like to pretend they can use against us. Emergency powers are in direct opposition to the US Constitution (caps mine).

      The word “All” in Article I, Section. 1 is all inclusive, meaning no one in the executive branch or within the judicial branch nor their “minions”, may create laws, executive orders, emergency powers, etc. (“All”: the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of). That “power”, “authority” is denied to those who serve within any capacity in those two branches: executive and judicial.

      “What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera.
      “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.” “We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters”, Dr. Edwin Vieira

      There’s NO such thing as “emergency powers” that anyone serving or working within either of
      the state or federal governments in the USA that they can “evoke”, not lawfully. Those within the federal or state governments can claim “emergency powers” for anything they want and the ONLY thing they do is make criminals of those who are too ignorant, are domestic enemies, or traitors of the USA and actually try to enforce these “pretend” “laws” when they should have immediately arrested those who wrote and gave those orders. They fooled the people who never bothered to learn what part they themselves play within our nation, what
      powers they actually were granted to use, and now the people are paying for it.

      “Lawful”: Inaccordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
      “Legal”: The “color of law”, “appearance of law”, “pretense of law without the substance of lawfulness”, “misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state”.

      Patrick Henry : “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

      J. Madison: “That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”

      Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials – Nazi Germany): “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

      Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
      The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the
      important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
      Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

      Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

      Key words in this are ” It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is
      excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

      • dan

        The Constitution is IGNORED by politicians…..imho

        • Kansas Bright

          Read the Constitution and see who is charged with the duties to:

          - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
          - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
          - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
          - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

          US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

          The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to
          defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

          Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

          Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
          the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

          Who is the Militia? You are, I am, “We the People” are the Militia of the several states.

          Remember a standing (regular) military is forbidden UNLESS we are in a congressionally declared war.

          Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”

          This “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” means that the Legislative branch has committed a crime (surprise, surprise). The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully
          allowed time of two years for the support of a “standing military” – of a congressionally declared war – was/and still is a misappropriation of funds; the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official…, which is
          a felony, a crime against the American people. Remember that they took on the PERSONAL responsibility of supporting and defending the US Constitution with the Oath, and to follow the contract (US Constitution’s assigned duties to the legislative branch) when they accepted those requirements and took office.

          How do you think that those involved in Military actions, etc were prosecuted for following an unlawful order? Because they were PERSONALLY responsible
          for THEIR actions after taking the Oath or Affirmation. The Military itself was not responsible for orders that were unlawful because they pass that responsibility of recognizing an unlawful order when given to the individuals and officers when they are sworn in. The Oath is their PERSONAL guarantee that they WILL support and defend the US Constitution BEFORE orders oa a US president or officers, people above them, BEFORE the duties of the office or position they took.

          The US Constitution assigns the duties of enforcing the US Constitution and
          each state’s Constitution to the militia of the several states: Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY), protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and suppressing Insurrections, and repelling Invasions” to the Militia of the several states.

          As Dr Edwin Vieira stated in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent
          forces by politicians of a garrison, “national-security”, or police state…

          So those bound by Oath who “knowingly, with willful blindness, or in reckless disregard of the consequences of his/her action” votes for an unconstitutional act, bill, etc; when a “President or state governor refuses to veto it and instead executes it; or when a Judge, either of the supreme and inferior courts of the general government, or of any state knowingly declares such a statute valid
          and enforceable – each and every one of them violates his oath of office….

          A remedy MUST exist for every individual harmed by each and every violation.
          That remedy MUST impose some personal liability on the violator – it being his own Oath or Affirmation he himself forswore. And that personal liability cannot be evaded by his or his cronies’ assertion of some ersatz official immunity”. End quote – Dr Edwin Vieira)

          The US Constitution allows for ONLY one official immunity, ONE.

          “Using an “”implied power to create “official immunities” for themselves would allow them to negate the express requirement that “they shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”… “for any public official to create or assert a purported “official immunity’ for himself or any other official” is itself a violation of his Oath or Affirmation”. Dr. Edwin Vieira.

          There is no statute of limitations on any act that breaks the Oath or Affirmation, or goes against the US Constitution, more importantly every unlawful deed that continues to remain on the books and is not destroyed by those reps who are later elected make them equally guilty of those crimes. As long as harm continues to those who are having those crimes enforced against them makes those reps, etc who let them continue guilty of every act committed.

          Take the Murder, injury to others, property damage done by those of those by governmental professional SWAT teams enforcing unlawful acts – those reps that allow it to continue are guilty of those crimes – each and every one of them committed First Degree Murder – up to and including the Chief of Police, state representatives, governor; if a federal law being enforced then federal representatives, judicial branch and the executive branch – all of which could have vetoed that unlawful act.

      • wunsacon

        >> Remember the US Constitution is a

        Yes, I know a fair bit about it…

        Thanks for trying to answer my question.

        To be clear, I strongly dislike the police state we seem to be creating. However, the contested sections appear to me to be statements regarding the detention of prisoners of war. Surely, the Commander in Chief can draw up rules — with or without Congress’ input — regarding prisoners of war. So, I’m afraid I’m not seeing or persuaded by your line of reasoning.

        • Kansas Bright

          “Surely, the Commander in Chief can draw up rules — with or without Congress’ input — regarding prisoners of war.”

          No, ANY US President IS CHARGED WITH the duty of preserving the US Constitution, and who is the Commander in Chief of “the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” WHEN they are called into action – that is when the congress declares that we are at war.

          US Constitution, Article. II. Section. 2.

          “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
          States.”

          Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES…”

          He is given pretty specific duties, all of which are LISTED within the US Constitution, and I do not see that listed here, do you?:

          Section. 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

          He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
          to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

          The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
          during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall
          expire at the End of their next Session.

          Section. 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as
          he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of
          Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

          Also notice that “executive orders” are also NOT listed – which is also backed up by the duties assigned to the legislative branch where it says in “Article. I.
          Section. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

          The word “ALL” means that the executive and judicial branch are refused the “power” of any making legislation (laws, etc).

          Also notice that there is NO SUCH THING AS “EMERGENCY POWERS” given to the executive branch, and if you go through the other duties assigned to the other TWO (2 – there is NO 4th branch of either banking or military) branches to use, or to assign to another branch or state to use. Yes, the framers were very used to emergencies, so it was deliberately left out since “emergency powers” are directly in opposition to, in conflict with, the US Constitution.

          • wunsacon

            >> Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
            Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
            WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES…”

            Congress called him into service:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Legal_basis_for_war

            So, I don’t know the reason FOR YOUR ALLCAPS. What are you trying to point out by that?

            >> He is given pretty specific duties, all of which are LISTED within the
            US Constitution, and I do not see that listed here, do you?:

            The Constitution says he’s Commander in Chief. That’s pretty general. What do you think the powers of a “Commander in Chief” are? Do you think the generals’ general can’t scratch his ass without it being written into the constitution?

            Even if it isn’t obvious that prisoners of war are held until after a conflict is over, then all the more reason Congress passed a law directing how prisoners of war are kept.

            Sorry, Kansas. Not persuasive.

  • Booo

    Time to take a long hard look at the robes. What art of the constitution does not apply here. It is time we the people stand up. Looks like there will be another group prayed session on the mall in the cesspool!!

    • Kansas Bright

      The US Constitution does apply here, please read my long comment earlier on the judges.

  • Undecider

    We don’t need violent revolution. And don’t bother with trying to vote in new politicians. We, as a people, need to start having local then national meetings. The ultimate purpose is to simply replace government. They have outlived their usefulness. Ignore them and stop funding them.

    • Kansas Bright

      We do NOT need a “revolution” at all. What is needed is enforcement of the US Constitution, each state’s Constitution, the laws of the land. That is the constitutionally assigned duty of the Militias of the several states:

      Second Amendment: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
      the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Key point is that the Militia is NECESSARY to the security of a free state. The Militia is NOT any governmental or military organization; it is the people themselves.

      All able-bodied Americans plus those lawfully allowed to be here – excluding “public servants” – from age 18 through age 60 are the Militia of the several states. The Militia equals “We the People of the USA” because each state’s Militia is made of its lawful citizens excluding “representatives”, and the state’s can work together as needed for defense and to enforce the US Constitution or each state’s Constitution.

      The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with: “We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”,

      By those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments. “We” created them for specific purposes, and it was NOT to destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us. Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

      The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. If the congress neglects their duty then it falls to the states, then to the people themselves. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

      Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”.

      This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.

      Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
      according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

      Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

      Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People”. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
      - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
      - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      The Militia of the several states offers everyone the greatest degree of equality with each other;

      - Because EVERY able-bodied person from the age of 18 – 60 is the militia of each state.
      - They, when trained, have the governmental powers to operate in every county, city, state, and throughout America when needed.
      - Plus through uniformity; the Militia requires the same general duty of service from everyone – though not all will have the same tasks as they can perform different tasks according to their abilities.

      “This is why the Militia offers the best protection against rogue politicians and usurpation’s for those serving within the governments, “We the people” protect our own natural rights and
      hold accountable those we put into positions of power by enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s constitution. When everyone takes a part in guarding the security of the neighborhood, county, city, state that they live in; plus the country when needed, it basically stops or makes it very difficult for a small body of people to take over this nation”. (Edward Vieira, Junior “Constitutional Homeland Security” Volume 1, the Nation in Arms”.)

      Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

      Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

      George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

      St. George Tucker, lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a
      U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree…”

      Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check
      the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people … entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
      And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

      Samuel Adams : “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

      Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

      The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It
      is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions”
      and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

      William Rawle, whose work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point
      and other institutions, was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms: “The prohibition is general. No
      clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

      Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: ‘The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
      The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden
      foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
      government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will
      generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

      Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
      American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

      • dan

        YOUR state legislature MUST re establish YOUR state militia…by law…(Edwin Viera has the info )……GET BUSY…..imho

        • Kansas Bright

          No, the Militia is already established the day we had American citizens 16 years and older. But we all must be trained.

          I recommend that you locate an constitutional sheriff near where you live and volunteer your time so that you can be trained cspoa.org) which will also get you familiar with them and will let you see for yourself IF they are holding to the US and state Constitutions; or get a hold of oathkeepers.org and get trained in their “Community Preparedness Teams” ( to serve as training and leadership cadre, to assist in organizing
          neighborhood watches, organizing mutual aid teams inside of churches,
          organizing veterans halls to provide community civil defense, forming
          County Sheriff Posses, strengthening existing CERT, volunteer fire,
          search-and-rescue, reserve deputy systems, etc., and eventually to
          assist in forming and training town and county militias (established by
          official act of town and county elected representatives).), or get involved in tenthamendment.com to assist in changing your state representatives’ minds or the reps themselves and the laws of your state, etc

    • WriteInVote NOeVoting

      “And don’t bother with trying to vote in new politicians”

      That really important to you that people don’t vote? WRITE YOUR VOTE IN WITH PEN AND PAPER. When write-ins may change some election outcomes and send a strong message we don’t trust electronic voting to locals who are not as controlled, why waste your time dissuading people from voting? The globalists rely more now on sitting back and letting Diebold do their cheating than trying to control every last detail of the election process across the country.

      • Kansas Bright

        Get rid of machine voting, UNVERIFIABLE counts at all levels being done in foreign nations. We need to do that NOW. That is how people have been, are,being, put into office that will work against us – no matter what they say (“actions speak louder then words”).

        The way we vote is really up to us, we the people. Why do you think that they had UN troops, etc here on US soil to “make sure our voting was done” properly? They fully expected us to rise up and denounce the illegal machinations there that went on openly throughout the complete voting process. They were here to be used against us fi we did not allow them to put people into our government openly.

        Didn’t that fact that they were there even make you think of why were foreign troops, a foreign entity here standing over and policing OUR US voting procedures?

        • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

          • Kansas Bright

            Thank you, that was one I had not seen!

  • heinrich6666

    My great disappointment with Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, and a lot of the other people leading this charge is that you can’t confront the fact that everything since 9/11 has been bullshit *without* confronting the fact that the 9/11 event itself was bullshit. It’s a supreme case of cognitive dissonance: on the one hand, claiming there’s this manufactured narrative about terrorists which is enabling a massive, lawless power grab, and on the other, holding that the core of the narrative, the 9/11 tale, is true in all its particulars.

    • xoxxxo

      Exactly…for more info go here: http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/split.html

      • rjl

        Thanks for this. I had been aware of Sunstein’s proposal to further muddy the waters with disinformation, but had not heard of Professor Griffin’s new book “Cognitive Infiltration”. I’d read most of his other stuff about 9/11, but, cynicism having taken its toll, had long since despaired of truth ever establishing a foothold against the onslaught of the propaganda machine and its creation of alternative reality.

        I will read this.

    • wright

      And I wouldn’t consider Ellsberg a “whistleblower” in that he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for 44 years, and only this year his name no longer appears in their roster. I don’t trust 99% of those claiming to be whistleblowers.

      • Kansas Bright

        Sometimes the information of the crimes committed by the federal government, state government US Military against the US People, our nation, is used to create an atmosphere of fear so that the “masses” can be more easily controlled.

    • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

      YES!!! And I’d like to add: MATT TAIBBI, BILL MOYERS, RALPH NADER, and a HOST of other LIBERALS who are going to go down in history as actually betraying us by not speaking out about 911. David Ray Griffin wrote about this, how liberal intellectuals betrayed us. We don’t even have to mention how bad the “conservatives” are on this subject.

      And Taibbi and Moyers have PROVEN they’re not afraid to out conspiracies. Taibbi outs banskter conspiracies, and Moyers outed Iran Contra. That makes them even MORE questionable about 911.

    • George Reichel

      Well said.The official 9/11 narrative is the most unbelievable “conspiracy theory” of all.

  • Arnold Lockshin

    Did anyone notice that the US Supreme Court is firmly on the side of the less-than-1 %ers, the racists, the US secret political police and the US war-makers.

    Surprise! The ruling class in the US rules in the interest of the US ruling class.

    Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow

  • Kansas Bright

    First, judges are NOT given the authority to “interpret” the US Constitution, they gave themselves that “power” which is “usurpation”. Here is WHERE they get their lawful authority: US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

    The pertinent words are “arising under this Constitution”.

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Vol I, Chapt 1: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

    Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his
    oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

    The pertinent words are “… who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution” and “.. therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law.”

    Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens. It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no
    longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be
    occupying the position they are serving in.

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the
    exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    James Madison, acknowledged ‘Father of the US Constitution’: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort…”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be
    valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    Chief Justice John Marshall: Opinion, Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to
    all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    Here in America, the people are supposed to decide directly and indirectly through various means – though the last few decades it has been much ignored even in the courts. Many have also forgotten that the courts were to be an independent branch enforcing the US Constitution, under no type of coercion from either the executive or the legislative branches. The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people,
    as jurors and as “We the People”. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a
    government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, BUT HIS DUTY…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, THOUGH IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT.” (Caps are mine)

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a
    judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    James Madison, Federalist 46: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes…
    They must be told that THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere
    of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, THAT THE EVENT IN EVERY CASE, should be SUPPOSED TO DEPEND ON THE sentiments and SANCTION OF THEIR COMMON CONSTITUENTS (“We the People”).” (caps are mine)

    Judges do NOT hold their position for life UNLESS they are using “Good Behaviour” in the courts.

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The JUDGES, BOTH OF THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOUR, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (caps are mine, and no where does it say for life.)

    James Madison, Federalist 39: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    James Wilson: “… The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour.”

    Good Behaviour is doing their duty as assigned to them by the US Constitution – the document from which they get their authority, and KEEPING their Oath’s.

  • http://www.worldeventsandthebible.com/ Brandon @ WorldEvents&TheBible

    The flag upside down is about right at this stage of the game. A nation in distress indeed. However, how many of the people you come in contact with on a daily basis are actually paying attention to these news items?

  • http://www.blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/ Pissed Off

    Is anybody surprised at this?

    • Kansas Bright

      No.

      But it is OUR fault as we allowed them to take (usurp) powers not granted to the. Thankfully that is a constitutional crimes as is all criminal or civil crimes done while they are in office and there is not time limitation on prosecuting constitutional crimes.

  • Fred Smith

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
    it.” – US Supreme Court: Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177

  • WriteInVote NOeVoting

    This senate floor video proves it does apply to American citizens and it was the Obama admin that lobbied to remove language exempting American citizens from indefinite detention:

    ++++++++++++++

    Conservative Outsider Wins Pennsylvania Race as Write-In
    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/03/york_county_senate_seat_winner.html

  • johnmosby

    If the Constitution no longer protect me – then it no longer protects them.

    A Constitution that does not bind government officials to its limitations cannot
    invest them with authority. Without authority the only weapon left to the
    government is force. Have you ever spoken to a government official, be it clerk
    at the DMV, or police officer, or representative who did not, behind a shallow
    veil, have force readily at hand? Now you know where you stand.

    “It is not ours to restore the Constitution. It is ours to show them the wrath of the American people without the protections the Constitution affords them. Let them restore the Constitution to find protection from us.”
    TL Davis

    • Kansas Bright

      “A Constitution that does not bind government officials to its limitations cannot
      invest them with authority.”

      You are correct in that those who are in office, etc ONLY have authority over us granted to the positions that they occupy by the US Constitution. As Dr. Edwin Vieira says: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…

      The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

      The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public
      officials that are consistent with the Constitution.
      Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy.
      It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal
      fiction.
      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

      What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do.
      Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera.

      “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.” (End quote by Dr. Vieira)

      But then, we have neglected the duty the US Constitution assigned to us. We are the Militia, and it is to us the duties of enforcement. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

      - Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
      - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      Here: US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11, Clause 15, Clause 16.

      The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”, that it would NEVER be taken from the states. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

      As some Dictators you should recognize said:

      ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Joseph Stalin, 1933 (And they did)

      “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” Lenin (And they are)

      We are REQUIRED to be armed and trained so that we can serve within the Militia of the several states.

      Thomas J. Jackson: “The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes
      the most reliable soldier on earth.”

      James Madison, the Father of our Constitution: “An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.”

      Thomas Jefferson:“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

      James Madison: … large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

      John Norton Pomeroy: The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia…. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

      Cockrum vs State: The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.
      A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

      State Gazette (Charleston): No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

  • Vendetta

    If this isn’t reason enough to take up arms then we are all doomed.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

  • Thomas

    Survents can not sue their master, so what makes one a survant, think about it and hard. Also take to mind, do you really live in the United States by its own definition, think about that, now just where is that definition located?, hym!, how about trying to read their Codes, it’s right in there. Try reading Volume 1 United States Code there in one will find the Organic Laws Titles 1-4 along with Title 5, sections 101-5949, and by the way pay close attention to dates of entry in 1-4 along with language used. As a hint the President of the United States is an employee of Congress by Oral Oath.

    • Defiant

      I wonder, in the Code, how they spell “servant.”

      • Thomas

        It all depends on how many errors one make when typing and its void upon error and not proof reading like one should

  • Badger Badgerism

    FINE…IF THATS the CASE
    EVERY COP, EVERY GOV OFFICIAL, OR AGENT IS MET WITH A WALL OF BULLETS IF THEY PASS the 5 FT CONFORT ZONE!

  • Defiant

    Why should an American wish to “interview” and disseminate the enemy’s propaganda and rhetoric, anyway?

  • Disgusted

    If the “president’s authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9/11″ – then why is Dick Cheney and George Bush still free? Both of these murdering scumbags should be publically hanged.

    The US Justice system is a fucking joke. Manipulated to support whatever the hell the President or the powerful want, justice be damned.

    There will be no justice in court. Ever. It’s a game played by the rich and powerful to victimize those who cannot afford to buy their defense from prostitutes (lawyers).

    This is why real Americans have come to hate America. This country has been taken over by scum, many dressed in black robes, fancy suits and wearing badges. They are not my fellow Americans, they are enemies of the people, occupiers, taking over our courts, institutions and government.

    We have not been a nation ruled by laws (or reason) for DECADES.

  • http://www.johnperryonline.com/ John Perry

    The charade is so all encompassing that the sleepwalking masses cannot recognize it. We’re told this completely bogus “war on terror” is all for our protection, while the rule of law and Constitution meant to be the bedrock of that protection are systematically dismantled by the very “leaders” sworn to honor them. And with so many still completely consumed with the mythical partisan divide, there seems to be little chance for the recovery of our republic.

  • Swannyww

    I don’t think the supreme court has read the same Constitution I have.

  • jhgl hgyi

    Sure 9/11 was a tragic event, and there has been future tragedies, and there probably will be more in the future (omg don’t throw me in jail for saying that!) But this preventative bullshit is over the top especially when it’s not stopping terrorists at all, and instead punishes innocent Americans.
    You can’t expect to stop all terrorists attacks, but what you can do is prosecute them, tighten your boarder defenses, and who you let into the country.
    What you SHOULDN’T be doing is further taking away American’s rights to Freedom of Speech, a right to an attorney and trial by jury, and a right to avoid unreasonable searches, seizures, and cruel and unusual punishment (containing someone without any of those rights isn’t an unreasonable seizure or cruel and unusual punishment? Seriously!? What the hell is wrong with the Supreme Court!?)
    Airport security is over the top too, even if you DO completely stop airplane incidents, what about public subways, boats, trains, buses, taxis, your own cars, or even pedestrians roaming the streets? Not nearly as much security there!
    I think the government can be classified as “terrorists” by their own definitions.

  • ali
  • ali

 

 

Twitter