_George W. Bush
George W. Bush greatly increased the size of the government with military and new entitlement spending. As a result, he ran huge deficits and doubled the national debt.
Bush also instituted the Patriot Act and AUMF which have been misinterpreted, expanded and abused in such a way as to seriously threaten our civil liberties. Here is a snapshot of why the Patriot Act is so heinous. In effect, the Patriot Act has unofficially repealed the protections of the fourth amendment! He also brought us the TSA which can and does violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure of law-abiding U.S. citizens on a daily basis.
Bush kept us locked in two deceptive wars which cost a fortune in blood and treasure. The Afghan war could have been avoided. Instead of invading a country with no ties to 9/11, we should have followed Ron Paul’s advice. Congress should have passed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, and sent "privately armed" forces on a specific and narrow mission to take out bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And, the Iraqi War was a farce. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction or direct links to 9/11. And, why the "benevolent" mission to remove Saddam Hussein (our former ally) in Iraq when there were so many tyrannical leaders to choose from?
Oil & The Petrodollar System
It was about control of oil in the region, just as Afghanistan is part of a larger Middle Eastern/Asian oil strategy. The oil is certainly not for you and me, because the technology already exists to make us independent from oil in the Middle East. However, that independence is contingent upon oil conservation. Unfortunately, conservation is anathema to the oil industry for obvious reasons; the military-industrial complex which need oil for its war machines; and, industries like the automobile industry which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Many of our politicians are bought and paid for by the lobbyists and special interest groups, so the oil wars and empire continue. Also, there are those in our government who feel like it's to our Geo-political advantage to control the oil reserves world wide as leverage against countries on the rise like China whom they deem a threat.
More importantly, U.S. military operations in the Middle East are conducted to preserve the petrodollar system. In short, the petrodollar system replaced the international gold standard in the early-to-mid-1970s. Under the petrodollar system, all of the oil-producing nations of OPEC had agreed to price their oil in dollars and to hold their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. government debt securities (in western banks) in exchange for generous offers by the U.S. including weapons, military aid and guaranteed protection from Israel. What this means is all countries of the world are required to develop strategies to acquire U.S. dollars which they must use to purchase oil from OPEC nations. Most countries, like Japan, have opted for an export-led strategy with the United States in order to exchange their goods and services for the U.S. dollars. The global artificial demand for U.S. dollars established by the international gold standard would not only remain intact, it would soar due to the increasing demand for oil around the world.
The petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States:
• It increases global demand for U.S. dollars,
• It increases global demand for U.S. debt securities,
• It gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a currency it can print at will.
The dollar-oil relationship must be maintained at all costs to keep the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency. Dollar hegemony is the only way the U.S. can maintain and continue spreading its empire. If oil markets replace dollars with euros (or another currency) it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency. The socioeconomic consequences for the U.S. would be disastrous if the dollar was no longer the world reserve currency. Our whole economic system depends on maintaining the current monetary arrangement.
Allow me to briefly explain the impact that a sudden loss of the petrodollar system would have upon the United States of America:
• Foreign nations would begin sending a flood of U.S. dollars back to the United States in exchange for the new currency needed for oil,
• The Federal Reserve would lose their ability to print more dollars to solve America's economic problems,
• The Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chairman would meet to determine the best course of action,
• That action would involve an immediate and dramatic increase in interest rates to reduce America's money supply,
• Hyperinflation would ensue temporarily while the interest rates took time to take full effect,
• All oil-related prices, including gas prices, would reach outrageous levels,
• Washington would soon realize that the total amount of money in the system would have to be dramatically slashed even further, leading to an even higher increase in interest rates,
• The clueless American public would demand answers. Those on the left would blame the right. The right would blame the left. And both political parties would seek to blame the Federal Reserve,
• People with adjustable rate debts would be crushed and massive layoffs would occur as businesses would be suffering from the high interest rates,
• Asset prices across the board would plummet in value,
• Amid the financial carnage, an economic recovery eventually would begin to take place. But this new American economy would be tremendously smaller due to a drastically reduced money supply.
This brief scenario is far from exhaustive. But I provide it to help you understand the great economic damage the U.S. would sustain if the petrodollar system were to collapse suddenly. It should come as no surprise, then, that the U.S. maintains a major military presence in much of the Persian Gulf region, including the following countries: Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Yemen. Any country that challenges the petrodollar system does so at great risk.
Many believe it was just such a challenge that started the war in Iraq. As mentioned, there were no WMDs or ties to 9/11. Saddam Hussein was eliminated because he threatened the petrodollar. He wanted euros in exchange for his oil instead. As soon as Hussein was removed from power, the petrodollar system was restored.
A new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system by Iran. Iran wants to price its oil in euros instead of dollars just as Iraq wanted to do. This abandoning of the dollar by Iran is no doubt, in part, blowback from our antagonism toward Iran since 1953. Consequently, Iran is on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.
Dollar superiority depends on our strong military and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit becomes.
However, there is evidence that foreign recipients have had a change of heart:
• As the U.S. dollar continued to lose purchasing power, several oil-producing countries began to question the wisdom of accepting increasingly worthless paper currency for their oil supplies. Today, several countries have attempted to move away, or already have moved away, from the petrodollar system. Examples include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea… or the “axis of evil,” if you prefer.
• Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the BRICS group of fastest growing economies – have signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant U.S. dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other. Please see this video news report about it.
• Russia and China have rejected U.S. debt and are buying gold instead.
• Russia, China, India and Asia have rejected Iran oil sanctions, led by the U.S. and Europe, making them unworkable; actions which put the petrodollar system at risk.
Israel
If you were to ask most Americans today if the United States has been a close friend and ally of Israel, most would answer with a resounding "yes." This is especially true of Evangelical Christians who believe that America's foreign policy in the Middle East should be driven, and even dictated, by Israel. Evangelicals often side with Republican candidates who promise to "look out for" Israel and to "stand up for" Israel. But, is there any solid evidence that America's foreign policy measures and actions in the Middle East have been guided by anything but upholding and protecting the petrodollar system? I would strongly suggest that the answer is no.
The American population, and Evangelicals in particular, have been hoodwinked with the "pro-Israel" chatter that pours out of most of our political leaders' mouths. Instead of being a true friend and ally to Israel, America has cleverly used its "relationship" with the Jewish state as a cover for its military adventurism in the Middle East. Still, many Americans, including most Evangelicals, buy the hype being pumped out of Washington's political spin rooms. If you turn off the corporate-controlled mainstream media for a day, however, and speak to the real inhabitants of the Middle East, a very different story emerges.
Would a true friend belittle your autonomy and self-determination by denying your right to defend yourself, all because they have made backroom deals with your enemies for financial gain?
Would a true friend seek to make you dependent upon financial aid and then give eight times more financial aid to your sworn enemies?
Yet, this is exactly what America has done to Israel in the name of "friendship." When Israel seeks to defend her territory, America always rushes to prevent it. Have you ever found yourself asking why America, and other Western interests who benefit from continued good relations with oil-producing nations, urge Israel to restrain herself? After all, who are we to intervene in a sovereign nation's foreign policy decisions? The truth is found when you follow the money…
As you may recall, part of the petrodollar agreement requires that the United States guarantee protection for Middle Eastern oil-producing nations from the threats specifically imposed by the Jewish state. When dispensing foreign aid into the Middle East, does America give money exclusively to Israel and her allies? No. Instead, Israel's sworn enemies receive eight times more in foreign aid than Israel does. How can you give free money and weapons to the enemies of your so-called "best friend" and keep a straight face?
While the masses clamor at the feet of those leaders who profess "support for Israel," I would suggest that they have rarely stopped to ask what that American "support" really looks like? The Jewish identity, as expressed in Zionism, is one that is deeply rooted in autonomy and self-determination. America's so-called "support" for Israel has served as a crafty cover for maintaining a military presence in the region… all to protect our national interests.
America has attempted to play both sides of this Middle East game for far too long. And, it has used the corporate-controlled media to control the American public for decades. They have kept us ignorant of the truth. Keeping the Middle East inflamed and destabilized has been a stated goal of Western interests for decades. This is the name of the game when your goal is empire. And, empires do not have friends… they have subjects.
It is time that Americans wake up and realize that we need to stop listening to the flapping jaws of the politicians and to the derelict corporate-controlled media, and instead, we should follow the money. Maintaining the petrodollar system is the American empire's primary goal. Everything else is secondary.
Our government officials use propaganda (deception, manipulation and fear-mongering) to gather support from the American people to:
• ensure re-election,
• maintain and further status quo policies.
And, the corporate-controlled, government-influenced mainstream media help them right along. It's about controlling us through distraction (and worse I'm afraid).
To see how deep the corruption runs, please check this out:
Please consider this powerful quote from Hermann Goering, 2nd in command of Hitler's 3rd Reich.
Barack Obama
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has essentially continued the above Bush policies. He has let his base, and the country, down in many ways. He ran on hope and change, but has changed nothing, only added.
The Economy & "Obamacare"
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Obama continued the bailouts and stimulus plans which devalue the dollar and hurt taxpayers, small businesses and small banks. In only 3 years, Obama has increased the national debt by 4 Trillion dollars, bringing it to almost 15.5 Trillion dollars (as of this writing)! This, after Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for increasing the debt by 4 Trillion dollars in 8 years (which was horrible in and of itself). The new 10-year projected cost of Obamacare is $1.76 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, the cost of Obamacare will likely top $2 trillion when the window slides forward another year in 2013 and the new projection reaches into 2023. Obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional and, as of this writing, is being challenged by 27 States in the Supreme Court.
06/28/12 - Supreme Court upholds entire health care law. No one likes imagining people suffering from illnesses without access to proper care. However, that doesn't happen in the U.S. The Emergency Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986, gives individuals the right to emergency care regardless of their ability to pay. Make no mistake - this is government force and control in action. More specifically, it is a new tax. Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. We no longer have a choice! Pandora's box has opened, and one wonders what the government will try to force us to do next. Even if you support Obamacare, the problem that many people seem to ignore is the U.S. cannot afford it. SCOTUS (specifically Justice Roberts) has just taken this country much closer to the edge of the economic cliff and much further from the U.S. Constitution. A sad day indeed.
Ron Paul's Statement on the CBO’s Obamacare Cost Projections:
“The CBO’s revised projection that Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years is simply the latest evidence that America cannot afford Obamacare. My ‘Plan to Restore America’ not only reduces federal spending by $1 trillion in the first year of my Presidency, balances the budget in three years, and jump-starts the economy with tax and regulatory relief, it also repeals Obamacare.
“On my first day as President, I will use my constitutional authority to stop enforcement of the unconstitutional national healthcare law. I will then work with Congress to repeal Obamacare and replace it with initiatives that restore a true free-market in healthcare, such as expanded access to Health Savings Accounts and individual healthcare tax credits and deductions.
“Of all the five men seeking the nomination of a major presidential party—President Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and myself—I am the only one who is a physician, the only one who has consistently opposed government intervention in the healthcare market, and the only one to propose a serious plan to do what is needed to Restore America Now.”
Clearly, Obama has no sense of fiscal responsibility. He has no intention of dealing with the enormous debt and deficit in a meaningful way. He just wants to keep adding to it in spite of the Euro-zone crisis which is heading our way. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 neither cut spending nor addressed necessary entitlement reforms. It would have increased the debt by $9 trillion over 10 years. The spending blueprint was such a joke that even Democrats rejected it.
On March 16, 2012, the CBO said that Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in the CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.
The CBO report “Understanding and Responding to Persistently High Unemployment" shows that, when those who have given up looking for work and those working part-time but would prefer full-time work are counted, the unemployment rate is actually 15%.
Obama is the second worst president on job creation since 1890, beaten only by Herbert Hoover.
Obama has done nothing to help fix the distress in the housing market, which was the immediate trigger for the Great Recession, and which continues to play a major role in preventing recovery. A muscular approach to housing would be a great stimulus potentially creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Obama’s latest tax reform proposal fails as well. Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama's tax reform proposal:
“Last week President Obama gave us a budget plan that contains more big government, a massive tax increase, and more destructive policies piling even greater debt onto the American people.
“Now from his administration we get a so-called tax reform plan that seeks to solve our bad spending habit with more of the same policies that have done nothing to help get us out of the mess we’re in. Obviously, this president still doesn’t get it. Tax-borrow-spend-and-inflate is not the way to balance the budget, restore the economy, or create jobs.
“By placing new taxes on Americans who do business overseas, President Obama’s plan drives capital away from the United States. By contrast, my Plan to Restore America will bring as much as $1 trillion into America’s capital markets by allowing Americans to repatriate capital without incurring additional taxes. This will spur trillions in new investment, creating good jobs for Americans.
“President Obama’s does cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, however, this is still a higher corporate tax rate than in Europe so the effectiveness of this rate cut in enhancing the competitiveness of American business is questionable. My plan reduces the corporate tax to 15 percent, which would free up capital for greater investment in expansion and job creation. My plan also extends all the current tax cuts, once again encouraging greater levels of investment in our economy.
“In addition, my Plan to Restore America gives hardworking families in this country a break by ending all taxes on personal savings allowing them to build a nest egg, which in turn strengthens our nation’s overall economy.
“Unlike the President, who promised to ‘cut the federal deficit in half’ by the end of his first term only to increase the deficit he inherited by billions and this year offer us yet another trillion-dollar deficit—I promise that if elected President to cut spending by $1 trillion my first year in office and plan to keep that promise.
“Fixing the problems our country faces takes bold leadership, bold ideas, and bold actions, not tired rhetoric, class warfare, and unfulfilled promises. As President, I pledge to do what it takes to get people back to work, and restore American prosperity.”
Foreign Policy
Obama has continued Bush's warmongering, nation building, empire spreading foreign policy. If you believe America has actually left Iraq and will leave Afghanistan as Obama claims, think again. The CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops. The Obama administration plans to rely on a combination of spies and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests (not the U.S. - its "interests") in the two longtime war zones, U.S. officials said.
Why does Obama have his sights set on the Middle East? Right! Oil and preservation of the Petrodollar System.
The Obama Administration has the U.S. engaged in these conflicts without legal and constitutional declarations of war by Congress - which means without the permission of the American people. In fact, the last war declared by Congress was WWII.
However, it's Congress (our supposed representatives) who let it happen! For too long, Congress has abdicated its power to declare war to the Executive, because it doesn't want to get its hands dirty in the foreign policy arena, and doesn’t want to take responsibility for the decisions that they should be making in that area. Instead, they "authorize" the Executive to conduct operations (like Iraq and Afghanistan) which is another way of saying, "Yeah, yeah, go do what you want." This is shameful! There are checks and balances in government for a reason. You know what's even more shameful? We do nothing about it.
In Libya, Obama didn't even bother to seek authorization from Congress. It was the behavior of a corrupt hypocrite. Here's what Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Gadhafi was not “an actual or imminent threat” to the United States, only to the Libyans who opposed him. Regardless, the U.S., along side its European, Canadian and Arab allies, intervened in the region under mandates from the U.N. Security Counsel - which means foreign Governments have greater influence over Obama than the American people have.
This was made abundantly clear at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 7, 2012. Under questioning from Senator Sessions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States. Panetta basically inferred international treaties and coalitions such as NATO, U.N. resolutions and the like trump the Constitution. He inferred the President can circumvent Congress (the American people!) and unilaterally conduct military operations in places like Syria and Libya despite the fact that such operations are NOT in direct defense of the U.S. This is a heinous affront to the Constitution! American sovereignty is being undermined! The Executive branch has way too much power. If Congress lets the Executive continue to get away with it, they are absolutely useless. Worst of all, the American people are too ignorant, too afraid, too lazy or in too much of a malaise to speak out against it.
Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to comments by Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding military options in Syria:
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statements once again illustrate the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution.
“For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders.
“There is no issue more serious than war. And make no mistake, establishing a ‘no-fly zone’ is in itself an act of war.
“Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress – not the President – the authority to declare war.
“This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control Executive Branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a congressional debate.
“But such actions should no longer come as a surprise. During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya. But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress. That was, and still is, unacceptable.
“This is a complete 180 from what we once heard when Obama was seeking the presidency, as he spoke passionately about the abuses of the Bush Administration in violating the War Powers Act. But, like many candidates, the rhetoric did not match the disappointing reality of what he would do as President.
“I have fought my entire political career for greater transparency, greater accountability, and strict adherence to the Constitution. If elected President, I pledge to always maintain the sovereignty of the United States and remain faithful to our rule of law.”
Adding insult to injury, these international coalitions claim that missions like what took place in Libya are conducted to protect the civilian populations of these countries from the oppressive and violent regimes which rule over them; they claim they want to promote democracy. However, their involvement in the region achieves results to the contrary.
You cannot stop violence against civilians in these countries by perpetrating violence against civilians in these countries. In today's modern warfare, Predator Drones are often used to target missile sites and the like. It is estimated that these attacks kill 50 non-targeted persons for each intended target.
Here is a video which claims to document some of these attacks from the point of view of the civilians the U.N. coalition is trying so hard to protect. There is no clear evidence in the video that the specific bombings illustrated are by the U.S. military. However, bombings are bombings, and when the U.S. does engage in this type of activity in the region, this represents the unintended consequences. Warning: the video contains graphic violence.
You cannot promote democracy in these countries by cramming it down their throats. The result is simply the radicalization of the civilian populations of these countries against the U.S.
The people of the Middle East are not stupid. They know the U.S. and other countries are not there for their collective well-being. They know it's for oil, and they resent it. They resent the occupation. They resent the death and destruction. They resent the theft. All of the pent up despair and frustration lead to terrorist retaliation - what's referred to as "blowback." Simply put, Blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences (9/11) of a covert operation (oil strategy in the Middle East masquerading as loftier goals) that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government (U.S.).
On March 11, 2012, an American soldier opened fire on villagers in Afghanistan killing 16 civilians. Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the rampage as "intentional murders" and demanded an explanation from the United States. His office said the dead included nine children and three women. This, after NATO forces burned an undisclosed number of Korans and were preparing to dispose of many more by incineration. If you think that kind of behavior won't create more terrorist blowback, then you're dreaming.
On April 14, 2012, The New York Times reports an American soldier dies every day and a half, on average, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Veterans kill themselves at a rate of one every 80 minutes. More than 6,500 veteran suicides are logged every year — more than the total number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined since those wars began.
The solution? Bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, now! And, when troops must be used in the future, send them on legitimate and clear missions which are actually achievable and not without end.
After a series of violent episodes and setbacks, support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among both Republicans and Democrats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The survey found that more than two-thirds of those polled — 69 percent — thought that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Americans are war-weary. Unfortunately, the military-industrial-complex and the bought-and-paid-for politicians are not.
On May 29, 2012, The New York Times published, "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will." An expose like this in the nation's most respected liberal newspaper is promising for the defense of civil liberties. Here are some select quotes from the article which portray an arrogant, dictatorial president (regardless of his intentions) who has betrayed his liberal base:
Not only does Obama disregard the American people by circumventing Congress, but despite his penchant for warfare, he disregards those who fight the wars. He wants to cut military and vets' healthcare benefits, but not the benefits for military industrial complex workers!
Additionally, George H.W., Clinton, George W. and Obama have all followed the "grand strategy" of trying to prevent another cold war, but it appears we may be reaching an economic impasse that simply cannot sustain those efforts.
This is key - we cannot economically sustain the imperial militarism necessary to preserve the Petrodollar System and the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency; control all the oil in the Middle East; and, prevent another cold war. We are too deep in the hole. Our debt and deficit are out of control. Our manufacturing base has all but vanished. It's not a matter of "if." Austerity is here, and it will get much worse before it gets better.
However, Americans have a choice: we can do as Dr. Paul prescribes and face and accept the truth about the situation and take steps to adapt to the "new normal" on our own terms and time-table; or, we can "kick the can down the road" and deny the severity of the situation until it is thrust upon us full-force, all at once. The former option equals less overwhelming pain and should be preferable to the latter, but I fear not enough Americans agree. I will tell you this: a vote for anyone but Ron Paul means a vote for kicking the can down the road.
Civil Liberties
As mentioned, Obama seems to enjoy starting conflicts without Congressional approval - quite dictatorial of him. He loves issuing executive orders and regulations which, in effect, amount to his own legislation. Circumventing Congress in this way is an affront to the Constitution; it disregards the checks and balances of our Government; and, it concentrates too much power in the hands of the President. Well, it doesn't end there.
The Obama administration’s use of executive power has gone further than the Bush administration’s toward diminishing Americans’ civil liberties according to author John Yoo. In 2011, Obama extended the Patriot Act for four more years. Regarding loss of civil liberties Obama has reached a new low. He has signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on December 31, 2011.
There has been such outrage by Americans toward the Obama administration for his signing of the NDAA that a coalition of well-known journalists, activists and civil libertarians have sued President Obama, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other members of the U.S. government to push them to remove or rewrite this year’s defense appropriations bill. The coalition contends the bill chills speech by threatening constitutionally protected activities such as news reporting, protest and political organizing in defense of controversial causes such as the Wikileaks case.
March 29th, 2012 a group of plaintiffs led by author/journalist Chris Hedges brought a lawsuit against Barack Obama and the US government for section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which gives the US military the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. This clip features interviews with the plaintiffs during or immediately after the court date.
UPDATE: U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that Section 1021 in the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing military detention of American citizens without due process, is unconstitutional.
9.12.12 - Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction Against NDAA: Judge Katherine Forrest–a recent Obama appointee–permanently enjoined (prevented) enforcement of a portion of the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process.”
A little background on the NDAA:
The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force ONLY against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says NOTHING about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations (Bush/Obama) have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.
In short, the Bush/Obama administrations have extended the powers of the 9/11 AUMF way beyond what was originally intended by Congress. Their collective expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF amounts to nothing more than unconstitutional power grabs.
NDAA uses the AUMF as a platform to build on. Section 1021 of the NDAA, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to use the U.S. military to indefinitely detain persons, including American citizens(!), without charge or trial, who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.
Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, without a charge or trial and may transfer the donor to another country. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE. It essentially does to the 5th Amendment what the Patriot Act does to the 4th. Here's another disturbing possible NDAA scenario.
Here are just some of the ways the NDAA violates the U.S. Constitution:
Violates United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:
NDAA denies right to Habeas Corpus, a writ by which an individual can be released from unlawful detention.
Violates United States Constitution Article 3, Section 3:
NDAA authorizes indefinite detention against Article 3, Section 3, which provides those charged with treason heightened due process protections.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 4:
NDAA authorizes indefinite detention of citizens even after an Innocent verdict from a Jury and against the right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 5:
NDAA detainment provisions violate the right of prohibition of deprivations of liberty without due process.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 6:
NDAA detainment provisions violate: the right to a speedy public trial; the ability to confront witnesses; the knowledge of crime; and, the assistance of council.
Obama's Attorney General says the U.S. can assassinate American citizens abroad (without charge or trial). Listen to Ron Paul on the issue.
Barack Obama has attacked 2nd Amendment rights, but he has done so quietly, behind-the-scenes, and by regulation and BATFE abuses. He's quiet now, but if he gets re-elected, it may be open season on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment exists so that every one of us (man or woman; young or old; weak or strong) can defend our collective God/Nature given (not Gov't given) right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the 2nd Amendment was created, in part, to give American citizens the means to protect themselves FROM Government tyranny. Every American should cherish and protect the 2nd Amendment, because without it we cannot adequately defend any of our Constitutional rights. In short, we would be sitting ducks, at the mercy of violent criminals (who will have guns regardless) and Government tyranny.
Obama has said that he would not support the controversial SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) that would allow the justice department to force search engines from linking to sites that were accused of copyright infringement and require Internet providers to block those sites as well. However, that only applies to the current incarnation of that bill. Once it's re-tooled, do not be surprised if he signs it. Why? Well, he's already signed NDAA which is far worse, and he also quietly circumvented Congress to sign a treaty that many feel is more dangerous to internet freedoms: ACTA. Read about it here and here.
But wait, there's more! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, following a recent anti-piracy legislative debacle with SOPA and PIPA, will lead his second effort of 2012 to push Internet-regulating legislation, this time in the form of a new cybersecurity bill aptly named, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2012." The bill would seek to give the Department of Homeland Security regulatory authority over the private companies that control "critical infrastructure systems." You can download and read the bill in its entirety here.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is the latest attempt by the Democrats to broadly expand the authority of Executive branch agencies over the Internet. Tyranny is something that happens rather than something that just is. We lose freedom incrementally, even subtly, at times. Certainly this has been the case with the War on Terror. The same will be true of the War on Cyberterror.
That’s the thing about overreach – even when we agree on the problem, or on most of the problem, and even when there is a legitimate threat to life and property posed by cyber terrorists, I worry more about the overreaction. This is something Ron Paul has pointed out in regards to Iranian nukes over and over again in the GOP debates, but it’s just as important to point it out when talking about anti-piracy or anti-cyberterror legislation.
Sometimes good intentions really do pave the way – if not to hell – than to a loss of civil liberties that are more precious than our sense of security. Unless there is a public outcry against this legislation comparable to what took place with SOPA/PIPA (which would be dangerous for Obama in an election year), expect Obama to sign the bill posthaste. Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose "The Cybersecurity Act of 2012" and any other legislation that would grant Government more power over the Internet.
The Internet has a new enemy. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), also known as H.R. 3523, is a “cybersecurity” bill in the House of Representatives. CISPA is quickly gaining traction as “the new SOPA.” While CISPA does not focus primarily on intellectual property (though that’s in there, too), critics say the problems with the bill run just as deep. CISPA proposes to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to allow for greater sharing of “cyber threat intelligence” between the U.S. government and the private sector, or between private companies. CISPA also removes any liability from private companies who collect and share qualified information with the federal government, or with each other. Finally, it directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to conduct annual reviews of the sharing and use of the collected information by the U.S. government.
As with SOPA and PIPA, the first main concern about CISPA is its “broad language,” which critics fear allows the legislation to be interpreted in ways that could infringe on our civil liberties. The Center for Democracy and Technology sums up the problems with CISPA this way:
• The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;
• The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;
• It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;
• Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybesecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) adds that CISPA’s definition of “cybersecurity” is so broad that “it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’” Moreover, the inclusion of “intellectual property” means that companies and the government would have “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, critics warn that CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes.
According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”
“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes,’” the EFF continues. “That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”
Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin. The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.
06/18/12 - Google Sees "Alarming" Increase Of Government Censorship Requests. In Google's newest biannual Global Transparency Report, the company has noticed an "alarming" incidence of government requests to censor internet content over the last six months. They have received more than 1,000 requests from various governments around the world to remove various items from YouTube videos, search listing, blogs and more.
The one place that has been largely free of government control - the Internet - is the statists’ latest target. They say it's about stopping "piracy." And they say they are only spying on foreign terrorists. Nothing for us law-abiding Americans to worry about. Let's be honest - if the Government takes the power to regulate the Internet and shut down information, no matter what the stated reason, you and I cannot control what they do with that power.
SOPA reborn by Congress as IPAA - In the past several months, Congress has attempted to police and control the Internet with bills such as PIPA, SOPA and CISPA. But due to blackout campaigns by websites such as Wikipedia, Google and Reddit and protest from citizens, the legislation has been shot down repeatedly. Now the hydra has reared a new head this time known as IPAA, the Intellectual Property Attache Act.
Make no mistake, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CISPA, IPAA and the like will amount to Government and/or business controlled censorship and invasion of privacy. They will lead to the loss of American freedoms just like the War on Terror has. It's no secret that websites, social media, and other online communities are a hotbed of powerful activism which is highly critical of abuse of power by Government. Might it be in the Government's best interest to disrupt and control communications among those folks?
Those in power sense the growing dissatisfaction of the American people (and people all over the world for that matter) as illustrated by movements such as the Tea Party (the original movement, not the current version the NeoCons co-opted) and Occupy Wall Street (the original movement, not the current version George Soros and the like co-opted). Some people even postulate NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up dissidents and anti-government activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. They claim that the federal government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of a police state grid with an overarching plan for the internment of political enemies. They claim the Department of Homeland Security and the establishment media keep telling us the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. Some believe FEMA camps are where these political enemies will be held. They believe numerous Fusion Centers are collecting data on everyone in the U.S. as I write this. Is this complete nonsense? Just the ruminations of conspiracy theorists? Perhaps, but it's not like it's unprecedented: remember the Japanese American Internment camps of WWII? Only time will tell if these things will come to pass, but the consistent attacks on our civil liberties, and the fact that history generally repeats itself, should give everyone serious pause.
On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) called "National Defense Resources Preparedness." This EO updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush. Defenders of Obama's new update insist there's nothing to worry about, because it's virtually identical to EO 12919. They claim all "National Defense Resources Preparedness" does is delegate presidential authority for these actions to cabinet members and others in the executive branch with respect to departments such as DHS which didn't exist in 1994. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt that Obama's update is harmless relative to past incarnations of this EO, that it changes nothing (which I don't believe, but more on that later), any EO like this one, be it Obama's or G.W. Bush's or Clinton's or whomever's, doesn't sit well with me at all.
Let's take a look at how this updated version of "National Defense Resources Preparedness" delegates presidential authority “to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders . . . to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders”:
In short, the president can take by force from the American people, through the various cabinet heads, all of the above resources deemed necessary for “National Defense".
Earlier I said I didn't believe that Obama's EO update hasn't changed anything. Here's why. Section 102 specifically notes that the EO is intended to ensure defense preparedness “in peacetime and in times of national emergency.” So, the president has this power over us during peacetime, when things are OK. My understanding is the peacetime authority is a new development. And, it's an enormous red flag, "preparedness" notwithstanding. The president also has this authority during national emergencies. Here's the problem - what exactly qualifies as "national defense" and a "national emergency", and who defines those terms? Is it the president and his cabinet heads? It sure seems that way. This is just way too much power in the hands of too few people.
When you examine this EO within the context of the Bush and especially the Obama administrations' systematic destruction of American civil liberties, it leaves one feeling quite unnerved. It's not paranoia. It's not imagined. I don't know about you, but Obama, his cabinet and the Congress for that matter have not earned my trust. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. America's founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Just when you thought the government couldn’t compromise the First Amendment any further: Congress has brought us H.R. 347, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." H.R. 347 is a bill that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it. The bill gives the government the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country. The House initially passed the bill on February 28, 2011. Sadly, during that vote, only 33 out of 402 Representatives in the House voted "no" or did not vote. Ron Paul voted "no." Subsequently, on February 6, 2012, the Senate added an amendment and passed the bill by Unanimous Consent. The latest vote by the House, on February 27, 2012, was to agree to the Senate amendment and pass the bill. Again, only 45 out of 391 Representatives voted "no" or did not vote. Ron Paul did not vote (which amounts to the same thing as voting "no" in terms of passage of a bill). Now the bill will very likely go to the president and there's little doubt Obama will sign it into law, especially since the bill officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House. Update: Obama has signed H.R. 347 into law.
A bill has passed in the House and Senate that would allow the presence of drones in U.S. civilian airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act requires the FAA to alleviate many current rules on domestic drone authorization. Drones would now be able to fly in the same airspace as commercial airliners, private planes, and cargo jets. Up to 30,000 drones could be allowed in U.S. airspace by the end of the decade.
Well, chalk another one up for Obama's attack on civil liberties. Read all about how "Obamacare's Contraception Mandate Tramples Religious Liberty." Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-large of the National Review Online said Obama is trying to distract voters by prioritizing social issues. Goldberg says the new focus is a ploy to mobilize Democratic supporters who might be less than thrilled with the President's economic performance.
Millions of dollars in White House money has helped pay for New York Police Department programs that put entire American Muslim neighborhoods under surveillance.
Reporters Without Borders has released its annual World Press Freedom Index and the United States fell 27 points to No. 47 on the list. Why? "More than 25 [reporters] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police" during Occupy movement protests.
10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free, as reported by the Washington Post:
Obama's Achievements As President DEBUNKED
This lovely piece of propaganda extols the miraculous achievements of Barack Obama while President of the United States. Well, one blogger, who goes by the name of "DrinkingBadTea," decided to debunk those achievements line-by-line (click the title link for the original post). For your convenience, here's what DrinkingBadTea provided:
Oh, and Obama:
Miscellaneous, Yet Noteworthy Obama Developments
In a March 2007 interview, Obama condemned the Bush Administration for "[hiding] behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place, and the administration would be best served coming clean..." Fast forward to today (06/20/12) and we see Obama, the "hypocrite-in-chief" doing the exact same thing - Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote [because of "Operation Fast and Furious"]. So much for the transparency of the Obama administration.
Conclusion
The above represents only the tip of the iceberg with Obama. If you want a more thorough understanding of how he's just as bad as Bush, if not worse, then check this out. Your head will spin!
Long story short, Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin. They are puppets of Central Banksters, Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex. Both, in association with Congress, have sought to:
- grow the power and scope of federal government,
- engage in crony-capitalism moving this country ever-closer to corporate fascism,
- reward "too big to fail" institutions at the expense of the average American citizen,
- dramatically increase foreign and domestic entitlements,
- continue a hawkish foreign policy which:
- spend us into oblivion,
- attack our Constitution thereby diminishing our civil liberties,
- increasingly control the lives and property of American citizens.
It's important to emphasize how complicit Congress is in all of the above. It's our responsibility as citizens to scrutinize the records of those we send to the Senate and the House of Representatives and remove them if they fail us. For example, only 7 out of 100 Senators and 136 out of 431 Representatives voted "no" on NDAA, because of the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The rest shit on the Constitution and our natural rights along with it.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
Where do you think the U.S. is on the above sequence? I think the evidence is clear that we have been slowly and steadily slipping "from Dependency back into Bondage" since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was established. Each war since then has given the federal government considerably more power over the people. And, the rate of that transition has sped up exponentially since 9/11, because our federal government and media have relentlessly fed our fears to further consolidate power and restrict our freedom.
The loss of our freedoms should make every American sick to our stomachs! Why are our civil liberties being eroded so quickly? When you connect all the above dots, from Bush to Obama, it doesn't create a pretty picture. The Obama administration and our Congress are preparing for something; something big. One can only speculate on what that may be. Domestic turmoil created by terribly irresponsible, decades-old economic and monetary policies? WWIII triggered by war with Iran based on long-term Middle East intervention for oil and preservation of the petrodollar? The simple corruption of power which leads to an ever increasing desire to control the lives of others to remain in power? A combination of all three? Whatever it is, it will not serve the best interests of the ordinary American citizen. Transfer of wealth will go to the elites where they may enjoy the preservation of their freedoms and increased protection from the unwashed masses (unless you have a bank account resembling that of, oh say... Mitt Romney, then that would be you). And, the average American? What happens to him or her? Simply put: more poverty and less freedom. What are you going to do about it?
Let’s be real. There is a limit to what we can prepare for in life. Yes, even the almighty federal government is limited in this regard. Absolute safety or security does not exist. Forgive my morbidity, but we’re all going to die. Nothing we do can prevent it. It’s just a matter of when and how. That’s why liberty is so precious. When a man is free, he can live his life how he sees fit no matter how long or short that life may be. That’s why liberty is worth fighting for and even dying for when necessary. That's why Patrick Henry cried, "give me liberty or give me death!" Our founding fathers believed this is true and so should you for one simple reason: the alternative is slavery (in one form or another), and that's no way to live. Do not let the great American experiment perish from the earth without a fight. There are many ways to fight injustice and tyranny. Pick one (or more) that works for you, and do it. One very easy and painless way: vote Ron Paul.
Two quotes by Benjamin Franklin come to mind:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
One very important point: Just because you may not have felt, or cannot perceive, the affects of the above policies in your own life doesn't mean others haven't, and it doesn't mean you or one of your loved ones won't in the future. I hope that never happens, but understand - we are all vulnerable to the abuses of power.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
George W. Bush greatly increased the size of the government with military and new entitlement spending. As a result, he ran huge deficits and doubled the national debt.
Bush also instituted the Patriot Act and AUMF which have been misinterpreted, expanded and abused in such a way as to seriously threaten our civil liberties. Here is a snapshot of why the Patriot Act is so heinous. In effect, the Patriot Act has unofficially repealed the protections of the fourth amendment! He also brought us the TSA which can and does violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure of law-abiding U.S. citizens on a daily basis.
Bush kept us locked in two deceptive wars which cost a fortune in blood and treasure. The Afghan war could have been avoided. Instead of invading a country with no ties to 9/11, we should have followed Ron Paul’s advice. Congress should have passed H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, and sent "privately armed" forces on a specific and narrow mission to take out bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And, the Iraqi War was a farce. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction or direct links to 9/11. And, why the "benevolent" mission to remove Saddam Hussein (our former ally) in Iraq when there were so many tyrannical leaders to choose from?
Oil & The Petrodollar System
It was about control of oil in the region, just as Afghanistan is part of a larger Middle Eastern/Asian oil strategy. The oil is certainly not for you and me, because the technology already exists to make us independent from oil in the Middle East. However, that independence is contingent upon oil conservation. Unfortunately, conservation is anathema to the oil industry for obvious reasons; the military-industrial complex which need oil for its war machines; and, industries like the automobile industry which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Many of our politicians are bought and paid for by the lobbyists and special interest groups, so the oil wars and empire continue. Also, there are those in our government who feel like it's to our Geo-political advantage to control the oil reserves world wide as leverage against countries on the rise like China whom they deem a threat.
More importantly, U.S. military operations in the Middle East are conducted to preserve the petrodollar system. In short, the petrodollar system replaced the international gold standard in the early-to-mid-1970s. Under the petrodollar system, all of the oil-producing nations of OPEC had agreed to price their oil in dollars and to hold their surplus oil proceeds in U.S. government debt securities (in western banks) in exchange for generous offers by the U.S. including weapons, military aid and guaranteed protection from Israel. What this means is all countries of the world are required to develop strategies to acquire U.S. dollars which they must use to purchase oil from OPEC nations. Most countries, like Japan, have opted for an export-led strategy with the United States in order to exchange their goods and services for the U.S. dollars. The global artificial demand for U.S. dollars established by the international gold standard would not only remain intact, it would soar due to the increasing demand for oil around the world.
The petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States:
• It increases global demand for U.S. dollars,
• It increases global demand for U.S. debt securities,
• It gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a currency it can print at will.
The dollar-oil relationship must be maintained at all costs to keep the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency. Dollar hegemony is the only way the U.S. can maintain and continue spreading its empire. If oil markets replace dollars with euros (or another currency) it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency. The socioeconomic consequences for the U.S. would be disastrous if the dollar was no longer the world reserve currency. Our whole economic system depends on maintaining the current monetary arrangement.
Allow me to briefly explain the impact that a sudden loss of the petrodollar system would have upon the United States of America:
• Foreign nations would begin sending a flood of U.S. dollars back to the United States in exchange for the new currency needed for oil,
• The Federal Reserve would lose their ability to print more dollars to solve America's economic problems,
• The Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chairman would meet to determine the best course of action,
• That action would involve an immediate and dramatic increase in interest rates to reduce America's money supply,
• Hyperinflation would ensue temporarily while the interest rates took time to take full effect,
• All oil-related prices, including gas prices, would reach outrageous levels,
• Washington would soon realize that the total amount of money in the system would have to be dramatically slashed even further, leading to an even higher increase in interest rates,
• The clueless American public would demand answers. Those on the left would blame the right. The right would blame the left. And both political parties would seek to blame the Federal Reserve,
• People with adjustable rate debts would be crushed and massive layoffs would occur as businesses would be suffering from the high interest rates,
• Asset prices across the board would plummet in value,
• Amid the financial carnage, an economic recovery eventually would begin to take place. But this new American economy would be tremendously smaller due to a drastically reduced money supply.
This brief scenario is far from exhaustive. But I provide it to help you understand the great economic damage the U.S. would sustain if the petrodollar system were to collapse suddenly. It should come as no surprise, then, that the U.S. maintains a major military presence in much of the Persian Gulf region, including the following countries: Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Yemen. Any country that challenges the petrodollar system does so at great risk.
Many believe it was just such a challenge that started the war in Iraq. As mentioned, there were no WMDs or ties to 9/11. Saddam Hussein was eliminated because he threatened the petrodollar. He wanted euros in exchange for his oil instead. As soon as Hussein was removed from power, the petrodollar system was restored.
A new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system by Iran. Iran wants to price its oil in euros instead of dollars just as Iraq wanted to do. This abandoning of the dollar by Iran is no doubt, in part, blowback from our antagonism toward Iran since 1953. Consequently, Iran is on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.
Dollar superiority depends on our strong military and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit becomes.
However, there is evidence that foreign recipients have had a change of heart:
• As the U.S. dollar continued to lose purchasing power, several oil-producing countries began to question the wisdom of accepting increasingly worthless paper currency for their oil supplies. Today, several countries have attempted to move away, or already have moved away, from the petrodollar system. Examples include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea… or the “axis of evil,” if you prefer.
• Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – the BRICS group of fastest growing economies – have signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant U.S. dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other. Please see this video news report about it.
• Russia and China have rejected U.S. debt and are buying gold instead.
• Russia, China, India and Asia have rejected Iran oil sanctions, led by the U.S. and Europe, making them unworkable; actions which put the petrodollar system at risk.
Israel
If you were to ask most Americans today if the United States has been a close friend and ally of Israel, most would answer with a resounding "yes." This is especially true of Evangelical Christians who believe that America's foreign policy in the Middle East should be driven, and even dictated, by Israel. Evangelicals often side with Republican candidates who promise to "look out for" Israel and to "stand up for" Israel. But, is there any solid evidence that America's foreign policy measures and actions in the Middle East have been guided by anything but upholding and protecting the petrodollar system? I would strongly suggest that the answer is no.
The American population, and Evangelicals in particular, have been hoodwinked with the "pro-Israel" chatter that pours out of most of our political leaders' mouths. Instead of being a true friend and ally to Israel, America has cleverly used its "relationship" with the Jewish state as a cover for its military adventurism in the Middle East. Still, many Americans, including most Evangelicals, buy the hype being pumped out of Washington's political spin rooms. If you turn off the corporate-controlled mainstream media for a day, however, and speak to the real inhabitants of the Middle East, a very different story emerges.
Would a true friend belittle your autonomy and self-determination by denying your right to defend yourself, all because they have made backroom deals with your enemies for financial gain?
Would a true friend seek to make you dependent upon financial aid and then give eight times more financial aid to your sworn enemies?
Yet, this is exactly what America has done to Israel in the name of "friendship." When Israel seeks to defend her territory, America always rushes to prevent it. Have you ever found yourself asking why America, and other Western interests who benefit from continued good relations with oil-producing nations, urge Israel to restrain herself? After all, who are we to intervene in a sovereign nation's foreign policy decisions? The truth is found when you follow the money…
As you may recall, part of the petrodollar agreement requires that the United States guarantee protection for Middle Eastern oil-producing nations from the threats specifically imposed by the Jewish state. When dispensing foreign aid into the Middle East, does America give money exclusively to Israel and her allies? No. Instead, Israel's sworn enemies receive eight times more in foreign aid than Israel does. How can you give free money and weapons to the enemies of your so-called "best friend" and keep a straight face?
While the masses clamor at the feet of those leaders who profess "support for Israel," I would suggest that they have rarely stopped to ask what that American "support" really looks like? The Jewish identity, as expressed in Zionism, is one that is deeply rooted in autonomy and self-determination. America's so-called "support" for Israel has served as a crafty cover for maintaining a military presence in the region… all to protect our national interests.
America has attempted to play both sides of this Middle East game for far too long. And, it has used the corporate-controlled media to control the American public for decades. They have kept us ignorant of the truth. Keeping the Middle East inflamed and destabilized has been a stated goal of Western interests for decades. This is the name of the game when your goal is empire. And, empires do not have friends… they have subjects.
It is time that Americans wake up and realize that we need to stop listening to the flapping jaws of the politicians and to the derelict corporate-controlled media, and instead, we should follow the money. Maintaining the petrodollar system is the American empire's primary goal. Everything else is secondary.
Our government officials use propaganda (deception, manipulation and fear-mongering) to gather support from the American people to:
• ensure re-election,
• maintain and further status quo policies.
And, the corporate-controlled, government-influenced mainstream media help them right along. It's about controlling us through distraction (and worse I'm afraid).
To see how deep the corruption runs, please check this out:
Please consider this powerful quote from Hermann Goering, 2nd in command of Hitler's 3rd Reich.
Barack Obama
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has essentially continued the above Bush policies. He has let his base, and the country, down in many ways. He ran on hope and change, but has changed nothing, only added.
The Economy & "Obamacare"
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Obama continued the bailouts and stimulus plans which devalue the dollar and hurt taxpayers, small businesses and small banks. In only 3 years, Obama has increased the national debt by 4 Trillion dollars, bringing it to almost 15.5 Trillion dollars (as of this writing)! This, after Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for increasing the debt by 4 Trillion dollars in 8 years (which was horrible in and of itself). The new 10-year projected cost of Obamacare is $1.76 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, the cost of Obamacare will likely top $2 trillion when the window slides forward another year in 2013 and the new projection reaches into 2023. Obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional and, as of this writing, is being challenged by 27 States in the Supreme Court.
06/28/12 - Supreme Court upholds entire health care law. No one likes imagining people suffering from illnesses without access to proper care. However, that doesn't happen in the U.S. The Emergency Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986, gives individuals the right to emergency care regardless of their ability to pay. Make no mistake - this is government force and control in action. More specifically, it is a new tax. Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. We no longer have a choice! Pandora's box has opened, and one wonders what the government will try to force us to do next. Even if you support Obamacare, the problem that many people seem to ignore is the U.S. cannot afford it. SCOTUS (specifically Justice Roberts) has just taken this country much closer to the edge of the economic cliff and much further from the U.S. Constitution. A sad day indeed.
Ron Paul's Statement on the CBO’s Obamacare Cost Projections:
“The CBO’s revised projection that Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years is simply the latest evidence that America cannot afford Obamacare. My ‘Plan to Restore America’ not only reduces federal spending by $1 trillion in the first year of my Presidency, balances the budget in three years, and jump-starts the economy with tax and regulatory relief, it also repeals Obamacare.
“On my first day as President, I will use my constitutional authority to stop enforcement of the unconstitutional national healthcare law. I will then work with Congress to repeal Obamacare and replace it with initiatives that restore a true free-market in healthcare, such as expanded access to Health Savings Accounts and individual healthcare tax credits and deductions.
“Of all the five men seeking the nomination of a major presidential party—President Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and myself—I am the only one who is a physician, the only one who has consistently opposed government intervention in the healthcare market, and the only one to propose a serious plan to do what is needed to Restore America Now.”
Clearly, Obama has no sense of fiscal responsibility. He has no intention of dealing with the enormous debt and deficit in a meaningful way. He just wants to keep adding to it in spite of the Euro-zone crisis which is heading our way. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 neither cut spending nor addressed necessary entitlement reforms. It would have increased the debt by $9 trillion over 10 years. The spending blueprint was such a joke that even Democrats rejected it.
On March 16, 2012, the CBO said that Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in the CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.
The CBO report “Understanding and Responding to Persistently High Unemployment" shows that, when those who have given up looking for work and those working part-time but would prefer full-time work are counted, the unemployment rate is actually 15%.
Obama is the second worst president on job creation since 1890, beaten only by Herbert Hoover.
Obama has done nothing to help fix the distress in the housing market, which was the immediate trigger for the Great Recession, and which continues to play a major role in preventing recovery. A muscular approach to housing would be a great stimulus potentially creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Obama’s latest tax reform proposal fails as well. Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama's tax reform proposal:
“Last week President Obama gave us a budget plan that contains more big government, a massive tax increase, and more destructive policies piling even greater debt onto the American people.
“Now from his administration we get a so-called tax reform plan that seeks to solve our bad spending habit with more of the same policies that have done nothing to help get us out of the mess we’re in. Obviously, this president still doesn’t get it. Tax-borrow-spend-and-inflate is not the way to balance the budget, restore the economy, or create jobs.
“By placing new taxes on Americans who do business overseas, President Obama’s plan drives capital away from the United States. By contrast, my Plan to Restore America will bring as much as $1 trillion into America’s capital markets by allowing Americans to repatriate capital without incurring additional taxes. This will spur trillions in new investment, creating good jobs for Americans.
“President Obama’s does cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, however, this is still a higher corporate tax rate than in Europe so the effectiveness of this rate cut in enhancing the competitiveness of American business is questionable. My plan reduces the corporate tax to 15 percent, which would free up capital for greater investment in expansion and job creation. My plan also extends all the current tax cuts, once again encouraging greater levels of investment in our economy.
“In addition, my Plan to Restore America gives hardworking families in this country a break by ending all taxes on personal savings allowing them to build a nest egg, which in turn strengthens our nation’s overall economy.
“Unlike the President, who promised to ‘cut the federal deficit in half’ by the end of his first term only to increase the deficit he inherited by billions and this year offer us yet another trillion-dollar deficit—I promise that if elected President to cut spending by $1 trillion my first year in office and plan to keep that promise.
“Fixing the problems our country faces takes bold leadership, bold ideas, and bold actions, not tired rhetoric, class warfare, and unfulfilled promises. As President, I pledge to do what it takes to get people back to work, and restore American prosperity.”
Foreign Policy
Obama has continued Bush's warmongering, nation building, empire spreading foreign policy. If you believe America has actually left Iraq and will leave Afghanistan as Obama claims, think again. The CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops. The Obama administration plans to rely on a combination of spies and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests (not the U.S. - its "interests") in the two longtime war zones, U.S. officials said.
Why does Obama have his sights set on the Middle East? Right! Oil and preservation of the Petrodollar System.
The Obama Administration has the U.S. engaged in these conflicts without legal and constitutional declarations of war by Congress - which means without the permission of the American people. In fact, the last war declared by Congress was WWII.
However, it's Congress (our supposed representatives) who let it happen! For too long, Congress has abdicated its power to declare war to the Executive, because it doesn't want to get its hands dirty in the foreign policy arena, and doesn’t want to take responsibility for the decisions that they should be making in that area. Instead, they "authorize" the Executive to conduct operations (like Iraq and Afghanistan) which is another way of saying, "Yeah, yeah, go do what you want." This is shameful! There are checks and balances in government for a reason. You know what's even more shameful? We do nothing about it.
In Libya, Obama didn't even bother to seek authorization from Congress. It was the behavior of a corrupt hypocrite. Here's what Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Gadhafi was not “an actual or imminent threat” to the United States, only to the Libyans who opposed him. Regardless, the U.S., along side its European, Canadian and Arab allies, intervened in the region under mandates from the U.N. Security Counsel - which means foreign Governments have greater influence over Obama than the American people have.
This was made abundantly clear at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 7, 2012. Under questioning from Senator Sessions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States. Panetta basically inferred international treaties and coalitions such as NATO, U.N. resolutions and the like trump the Constitution. He inferred the President can circumvent Congress (the American people!) and unilaterally conduct military operations in places like Syria and Libya despite the fact that such operations are NOT in direct defense of the U.S. This is a heinous affront to the Constitution! American sovereignty is being undermined! The Executive branch has way too much power. If Congress lets the Executive continue to get away with it, they are absolutely useless. Worst of all, the American people are too ignorant, too afraid, too lazy or in too much of a malaise to speak out against it.
Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to comments by Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding military options in Syria:
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statements once again illustrate the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution.
“For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders.
“There is no issue more serious than war. And make no mistake, establishing a ‘no-fly zone’ is in itself an act of war.
“Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress – not the President – the authority to declare war.
“This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control Executive Branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a congressional debate.
“But such actions should no longer come as a surprise. During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya. But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress. That was, and still is, unacceptable.
“This is a complete 180 from what we once heard when Obama was seeking the presidency, as he spoke passionately about the abuses of the Bush Administration in violating the War Powers Act. But, like many candidates, the rhetoric did not match the disappointing reality of what he would do as President.
“I have fought my entire political career for greater transparency, greater accountability, and strict adherence to the Constitution. If elected President, I pledge to always maintain the sovereignty of the United States and remain faithful to our rule of law.”
Adding insult to injury, these international coalitions claim that missions like what took place in Libya are conducted to protect the civilian populations of these countries from the oppressive and violent regimes which rule over them; they claim they want to promote democracy. However, their involvement in the region achieves results to the contrary.
You cannot stop violence against civilians in these countries by perpetrating violence against civilians in these countries. In today's modern warfare, Predator Drones are often used to target missile sites and the like. It is estimated that these attacks kill 50 non-targeted persons for each intended target.
Here is a video which claims to document some of these attacks from the point of view of the civilians the U.N. coalition is trying so hard to protect. There is no clear evidence in the video that the specific bombings illustrated are by the U.S. military. However, bombings are bombings, and when the U.S. does engage in this type of activity in the region, this represents the unintended consequences. Warning: the video contains graphic violence.
You cannot promote democracy in these countries by cramming it down their throats. The result is simply the radicalization of the civilian populations of these countries against the U.S.
The people of the Middle East are not stupid. They know the U.S. and other countries are not there for their collective well-being. They know it's for oil, and they resent it. They resent the occupation. They resent the death and destruction. They resent the theft. All of the pent up despair and frustration lead to terrorist retaliation - what's referred to as "blowback." Simply put, Blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences (9/11) of a covert operation (oil strategy in the Middle East masquerading as loftier goals) that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government (U.S.).
On March 11, 2012, an American soldier opened fire on villagers in Afghanistan killing 16 civilians. Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the rampage as "intentional murders" and demanded an explanation from the United States. His office said the dead included nine children and three women. This, after NATO forces burned an undisclosed number of Korans and were preparing to dispose of many more by incineration. If you think that kind of behavior won't create more terrorist blowback, then you're dreaming.
On April 14, 2012, The New York Times reports an American soldier dies every day and a half, on average, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Veterans kill themselves at a rate of one every 80 minutes. More than 6,500 veteran suicides are logged every year — more than the total number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined since those wars began.
The solution? Bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, now! And, when troops must be used in the future, send them on legitimate and clear missions which are actually achievable and not without end.
After a series of violent episodes and setbacks, support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among both Republicans and Democrats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The survey found that more than two-thirds of those polled — 69 percent — thought that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Americans are war-weary. Unfortunately, the military-industrial-complex and the bought-and-paid-for politicians are not.
On May 29, 2012, The New York Times published, "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will." An expose like this in the nation's most respected liberal newspaper is promising for the defense of civil liberties. Here are some select quotes from the article which portray an arrogant, dictatorial president (regardless of his intentions) who has betrayed his liberal base:
- "Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list,' poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war...He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go."
- "Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record."
- "Three dozen of [Obama's] current and former advisers...describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing."
- "A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks."
- "...the president seemed to have 'a sense that if he sketches a vision, it will happen — without his really having thought through the mechanism by which it will happen.'"
- "It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die."
- "Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third of the total."
- "But the control he exercises also appears to reflect Mr. Obama’s striking self-confidence: he believes, according to several people who have worked closely with him, that his own judgment should be brought to bear on strikes."
- "Mr. Obama had drawn a line. But within two years, he stepped across it. Signature strikes in Pakistan were killing a large number of terrorist suspects, even when C.I.A. analysts were not certain beforehand of their presence. And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was seizing territory."
- "...perhaps no case would test Mr. Obama’s principles as starkly as that of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric and Qaeda propagandist hiding in Yemen...Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial? The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch...Mr. Obama gave his approval...If the president had qualms about this momentous step, aides said he did not share them."
- "Justly or not, drones have become a provocative symbol of American power, running roughshod over national sovereignty and killing innocents. With China and Russia watching, the United States has set an international precedent for sending drones over borders to kill enemies."
- "No one would have imagined four years ago that [Obama's] counterterrorism policies would come under far more fierce attack from the American Civil Liberties Union than from Mr. Romney."
Not only does Obama disregard the American people by circumventing Congress, but despite his penchant for warfare, he disregards those who fight the wars. He wants to cut military and vets' healthcare benefits, but not the benefits for military industrial complex workers!
Additionally, George H.W., Clinton, George W. and Obama have all followed the "grand strategy" of trying to prevent another cold war, but it appears we may be reaching an economic impasse that simply cannot sustain those efforts.
This is key - we cannot economically sustain the imperial militarism necessary to preserve the Petrodollar System and the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency; control all the oil in the Middle East; and, prevent another cold war. We are too deep in the hole. Our debt and deficit are out of control. Our manufacturing base has all but vanished. It's not a matter of "if." Austerity is here, and it will get much worse before it gets better.
However, Americans have a choice: we can do as Dr. Paul prescribes and face and accept the truth about the situation and take steps to adapt to the "new normal" on our own terms and time-table; or, we can "kick the can down the road" and deny the severity of the situation until it is thrust upon us full-force, all at once. The former option equals less overwhelming pain and should be preferable to the latter, but I fear not enough Americans agree. I will tell you this: a vote for anyone but Ron Paul means a vote for kicking the can down the road.
Civil Liberties
As mentioned, Obama seems to enjoy starting conflicts without Congressional approval - quite dictatorial of him. He loves issuing executive orders and regulations which, in effect, amount to his own legislation. Circumventing Congress in this way is an affront to the Constitution; it disregards the checks and balances of our Government; and, it concentrates too much power in the hands of the President. Well, it doesn't end there.
The Obama administration’s use of executive power has gone further than the Bush administration’s toward diminishing Americans’ civil liberties according to author John Yoo. In 2011, Obama extended the Patriot Act for four more years. Regarding loss of civil liberties Obama has reached a new low. He has signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on December 31, 2011.
There has been such outrage by Americans toward the Obama administration for his signing of the NDAA that a coalition of well-known journalists, activists and civil libertarians have sued President Obama, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other members of the U.S. government to push them to remove or rewrite this year’s defense appropriations bill. The coalition contends the bill chills speech by threatening constitutionally protected activities such as news reporting, protest and political organizing in defense of controversial causes such as the Wikileaks case.
March 29th, 2012 a group of plaintiffs led by author/journalist Chris Hedges brought a lawsuit against Barack Obama and the US government for section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which gives the US military the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. This clip features interviews with the plaintiffs during or immediately after the court date.
UPDATE: U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that Section 1021 in the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing military detention of American citizens without due process, is unconstitutional.
9.12.12 - Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction Against NDAA: Judge Katherine Forrest–a recent Obama appointee–permanently enjoined (prevented) enforcement of a portion of the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process.”
A little background on the NDAA:
The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force ONLY against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says NOTHING about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations (Bush/Obama) have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.
In short, the Bush/Obama administrations have extended the powers of the 9/11 AUMF way beyond what was originally intended by Congress. Their collective expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF amounts to nothing more than unconstitutional power grabs.
NDAA uses the AUMF as a platform to build on. Section 1021 of the NDAA, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to use the U.S. military to indefinitely detain persons, including American citizens(!), without charge or trial, who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.
Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, without a charge or trial and may transfer the donor to another country. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE. It essentially does to the 5th Amendment what the Patriot Act does to the 4th. Here's another disturbing possible NDAA scenario.
Here are just some of the ways the NDAA violates the U.S. Constitution:
Violates United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:
NDAA denies right to Habeas Corpus, a writ by which an individual can be released from unlawful detention.
Violates United States Constitution Article 3, Section 3:
NDAA authorizes indefinite detention against Article 3, Section 3, which provides those charged with treason heightened due process protections.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 4:
NDAA authorizes indefinite detention of citizens even after an Innocent verdict from a Jury and against the right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 5:
NDAA detainment provisions violate the right of prohibition of deprivations of liberty without due process.
Violates United States Constitution Amendment 6:
NDAA detainment provisions violate: the right to a speedy public trial; the ability to confront witnesses; the knowledge of crime; and, the assistance of council.
Obama's Attorney General says the U.S. can assassinate American citizens abroad (without charge or trial). Listen to Ron Paul on the issue.
Barack Obama has attacked 2nd Amendment rights, but he has done so quietly, behind-the-scenes, and by regulation and BATFE abuses. He's quiet now, but if he gets re-elected, it may be open season on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment exists so that every one of us (man or woman; young or old; weak or strong) can defend our collective God/Nature given (not Gov't given) right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the 2nd Amendment was created, in part, to give American citizens the means to protect themselves FROM Government tyranny. Every American should cherish and protect the 2nd Amendment, because without it we cannot adequately defend any of our Constitutional rights. In short, we would be sitting ducks, at the mercy of violent criminals (who will have guns regardless) and Government tyranny.
Obama has said that he would not support the controversial SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) that would allow the justice department to force search engines from linking to sites that were accused of copyright infringement and require Internet providers to block those sites as well. However, that only applies to the current incarnation of that bill. Once it's re-tooled, do not be surprised if he signs it. Why? Well, he's already signed NDAA which is far worse, and he also quietly circumvented Congress to sign a treaty that many feel is more dangerous to internet freedoms: ACTA. Read about it here and here.
But wait, there's more! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, following a recent anti-piracy legislative debacle with SOPA and PIPA, will lead his second effort of 2012 to push Internet-regulating legislation, this time in the form of a new cybersecurity bill aptly named, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2012." The bill would seek to give the Department of Homeland Security regulatory authority over the private companies that control "critical infrastructure systems." You can download and read the bill in its entirety here.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is the latest attempt by the Democrats to broadly expand the authority of Executive branch agencies over the Internet. Tyranny is something that happens rather than something that just is. We lose freedom incrementally, even subtly, at times. Certainly this has been the case with the War on Terror. The same will be true of the War on Cyberterror.
That’s the thing about overreach – even when we agree on the problem, or on most of the problem, and even when there is a legitimate threat to life and property posed by cyber terrorists, I worry more about the overreaction. This is something Ron Paul has pointed out in regards to Iranian nukes over and over again in the GOP debates, but it’s just as important to point it out when talking about anti-piracy or anti-cyberterror legislation.
Sometimes good intentions really do pave the way – if not to hell – than to a loss of civil liberties that are more precious than our sense of security. Unless there is a public outcry against this legislation comparable to what took place with SOPA/PIPA (which would be dangerous for Obama in an election year), expect Obama to sign the bill posthaste. Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose "The Cybersecurity Act of 2012" and any other legislation that would grant Government more power over the Internet.
The Internet has a new enemy. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), also known as H.R. 3523, is a “cybersecurity” bill in the House of Representatives. CISPA is quickly gaining traction as “the new SOPA.” While CISPA does not focus primarily on intellectual property (though that’s in there, too), critics say the problems with the bill run just as deep. CISPA proposes to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to allow for greater sharing of “cyber threat intelligence” between the U.S. government and the private sector, or between private companies. CISPA also removes any liability from private companies who collect and share qualified information with the federal government, or with each other. Finally, it directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to conduct annual reviews of the sharing and use of the collected information by the U.S. government.
As with SOPA and PIPA, the first main concern about CISPA is its “broad language,” which critics fear allows the legislation to be interpreted in ways that could infringe on our civil liberties. The Center for Democracy and Technology sums up the problems with CISPA this way:
• The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;
• The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;
• It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;
• Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybesecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) adds that CISPA’s definition of “cybersecurity” is so broad that “it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’” Moreover, the inclusion of “intellectual property” means that companies and the government would have “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, critics warn that CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes.
According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”
“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes,’” the EFF continues. “That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”
Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin. The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.
06/18/12 - Google Sees "Alarming" Increase Of Government Censorship Requests. In Google's newest biannual Global Transparency Report, the company has noticed an "alarming" incidence of government requests to censor internet content over the last six months. They have received more than 1,000 requests from various governments around the world to remove various items from YouTube videos, search listing, blogs and more.
The one place that has been largely free of government control - the Internet - is the statists’ latest target. They say it's about stopping "piracy." And they say they are only spying on foreign terrorists. Nothing for us law-abiding Americans to worry about. Let's be honest - if the Government takes the power to regulate the Internet and shut down information, no matter what the stated reason, you and I cannot control what they do with that power.
SOPA reborn by Congress as IPAA - In the past several months, Congress has attempted to police and control the Internet with bills such as PIPA, SOPA and CISPA. But due to blackout campaigns by websites such as Wikipedia, Google and Reddit and protest from citizens, the legislation has been shot down repeatedly. Now the hydra has reared a new head this time known as IPAA, the Intellectual Property Attache Act.
Make no mistake, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CISPA, IPAA and the like will amount to Government and/or business controlled censorship and invasion of privacy. They will lead to the loss of American freedoms just like the War on Terror has. It's no secret that websites, social media, and other online communities are a hotbed of powerful activism which is highly critical of abuse of power by Government. Might it be in the Government's best interest to disrupt and control communications among those folks?
Those in power sense the growing dissatisfaction of the American people (and people all over the world for that matter) as illustrated by movements such as the Tea Party (the original movement, not the current version the NeoCons co-opted) and Occupy Wall Street (the original movement, not the current version George Soros and the like co-opted). Some people even postulate NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up dissidents and anti-government activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. They claim that the federal government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of a police state grid with an overarching plan for the internment of political enemies. They claim the Department of Homeland Security and the establishment media keep telling us the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. Some believe FEMA camps are where these political enemies will be held. They believe numerous Fusion Centers are collecting data on everyone in the U.S. as I write this. Is this complete nonsense? Just the ruminations of conspiracy theorists? Perhaps, but it's not like it's unprecedented: remember the Japanese American Internment camps of WWII? Only time will tell if these things will come to pass, but the consistent attacks on our civil liberties, and the fact that history generally repeats itself, should give everyone serious pause.
On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) called "National Defense Resources Preparedness." This EO updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush. Defenders of Obama's new update insist there's nothing to worry about, because it's virtually identical to EO 12919. They claim all "National Defense Resources Preparedness" does is delegate presidential authority for these actions to cabinet members and others in the executive branch with respect to departments such as DHS which didn't exist in 1994. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt that Obama's update is harmless relative to past incarnations of this EO, that it changes nothing (which I don't believe, but more on that later), any EO like this one, be it Obama's or G.W. Bush's or Clinton's or whomever's, doesn't sit well with me at all.
Let's take a look at how this updated version of "National Defense Resources Preparedness" delegates presidential authority “to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders . . . to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders”:
- The Secretary of Agriculture has this authority “with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer.”
- The Secretary of Energy has this authority “with respect to all forms of energy.”
- The Secretary of Defense has this authority “with respect to water resources” and to force a private person to assist in making chemical and biological weapons.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services has this authority “with respect to health resources.”
- The Secretary of Transportation has it “with respect to all civil transportation.”
- The Secretary of Commerce has it “with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities.”
In short, the president can take by force from the American people, through the various cabinet heads, all of the above resources deemed necessary for “National Defense".
Earlier I said I didn't believe that Obama's EO update hasn't changed anything. Here's why. Section 102 specifically notes that the EO is intended to ensure defense preparedness “in peacetime and in times of national emergency.” So, the president has this power over us during peacetime, when things are OK. My understanding is the peacetime authority is a new development. And, it's an enormous red flag, "preparedness" notwithstanding. The president also has this authority during national emergencies. Here's the problem - what exactly qualifies as "national defense" and a "national emergency", and who defines those terms? Is it the president and his cabinet heads? It sure seems that way. This is just way too much power in the hands of too few people.
When you examine this EO within the context of the Bush and especially the Obama administrations' systematic destruction of American civil liberties, it leaves one feeling quite unnerved. It's not paranoia. It's not imagined. I don't know about you, but Obama, his cabinet and the Congress for that matter have not earned my trust. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. America's founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Just when you thought the government couldn’t compromise the First Amendment any further: Congress has brought us H.R. 347, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." H.R. 347 is a bill that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it. The bill gives the government the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country. The House initially passed the bill on February 28, 2011. Sadly, during that vote, only 33 out of 402 Representatives in the House voted "no" or did not vote. Ron Paul voted "no." Subsequently, on February 6, 2012, the Senate added an amendment and passed the bill by Unanimous Consent. The latest vote by the House, on February 27, 2012, was to agree to the Senate amendment and pass the bill. Again, only 45 out of 391 Representatives voted "no" or did not vote. Ron Paul did not vote (which amounts to the same thing as voting "no" in terms of passage of a bill). Now the bill will very likely go to the president and there's little doubt Obama will sign it into law, especially since the bill officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House. Update: Obama has signed H.R. 347 into law.
A bill has passed in the House and Senate that would allow the presence of drones in U.S. civilian airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act requires the FAA to alleviate many current rules on domestic drone authorization. Drones would now be able to fly in the same airspace as commercial airliners, private planes, and cargo jets. Up to 30,000 drones could be allowed in U.S. airspace by the end of the decade.
Well, chalk another one up for Obama's attack on civil liberties. Read all about how "Obamacare's Contraception Mandate Tramples Religious Liberty." Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-large of the National Review Online said Obama is trying to distract voters by prioritizing social issues. Goldberg says the new focus is a ploy to mobilize Democratic supporters who might be less than thrilled with the President's economic performance.
Millions of dollars in White House money has helped pay for New York Police Department programs that put entire American Muslim neighborhoods under surveillance.
Reporters Without Borders has released its annual World Press Freedom Index and the United States fell 27 points to No. 47 on the list. Why? "More than 25 [reporters] were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police" during Occupy movement protests.
10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free, as reported by the Washington Post:
- Assassination of U.S. Citizens - Obama has claimed, as George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism.
- Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens - NDAA, as described above.
- Arbitrary Justice - Obama now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.
- Warrentless Searches
- Obama may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new
capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information
on citizens’ finances, communications and associations.
- Secret Evidence - The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts.
- War Crimes - The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law.
- Secret Court - The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations.
- Immunity from Judicial Review - Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.
- Continual Monitoring of U.S. Citizens - The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.
- Extraordinary Renditions - The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.
Obama's Achievements As President DEBUNKED
This lovely piece of propaganda extols the miraculous achievements of Barack Obama while President of the United States. Well, one blogger, who goes by the name of "DrinkingBadTea," decided to debunk those achievements line-by-line (click the title link for the original post). For your convenience, here's what DrinkingBadTea provided:
- 3,000,000 new jobs? Doesn’t even make a dent considering the real unemployment rate.
- Smaller government? That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.
- Deficit reduction? What deficit reduction?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-debt-has-increased-48994...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt...
- Healthcare reform? The future costs of Obamacare compounded with the national debt is astronomical.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/researchnotes/WorkingPaper-4.pdf
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/get-ready-supreme-co...
- Wall street reform? Not with friends like these.
- Saved the US auto-industry? Nope, hell Chrysler is owned by Italy now!
- All "bailout money" returned with interest? Not yet. General Motors paid back their government loan… with another government loan.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bail...
- Three new trade agreements? Yes, with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama; nothing groundbreaking there. Oh, and then we found out that:
“A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44989775/ns/politics-white_house...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-documen...
- Repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I’ll give him that one.
- Killed Osama Bin Laden? Well technically US Navy Seal Team 6 did that. OK, he gave the order, you know being commander-in-chief and all…
- Oh, but wait, Osama was originally a CIA asset!
- Seal Team 6 was killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan months later!
- and this,
- and them:
I’m getting off topic though, and frankly into territory that I don't even believe. Back to the list.
- Rescued American Hostages? Once again, technically that was the US Navy, but OK commander-in-chief and all… but can rescuing two people from freaking pirates really be considered a major accomplishment?
- Toppled Gadhafi without an American casualty? Yes… but France and England helped. It was in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. Almost immediately after the fall of Gadhafi, the Al-Qaida flag was flying high, and the “rebels” that we helped turned out to be… well... Al Qaida. AND HOW IS ANOTHER WAR A GOOD THING!? 3,000 DEAD, 4,000 MISSING.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/opinion/la-oe-schell...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/libya-war-died_n_95...
- Unified the world against Iran? Well, if the world doesn’t include Russia and China, then yeah sure.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-06/15/c_1316557...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57451583/china-defends-i...
- Has the Arab League watching Syria? Yes, but what has that accomplished? Nothing! The situation is so bad there that the U.N. just bailed.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/whats-obamas-plan-b-after-ara...
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/un-suspends-s...
- No tax dollars spent on BP clean up? Sure, I’ll give him that one, too. Meanwhile… DRILL BABY DRILL!
- More deportations than Bush? Yes, he gets that one, even though it’s a complete reversal of what he ran on in 2008:
“The American people want fairness, want justice. They recognize that the idea that you’re going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we’re not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back.”
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/11/154782404...
- Fewer regulations than Bush? Yes, except his regulations are costing businesses more.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/obama-wrote-5-fewer...
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/18/chart-of-the-week-obama-...
- Supports states' rights on Marijuana? Absolutely false! Another reversal of his 2008 position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-rai...
http://youtu.be/wWWOJGYZYpk
- Ended the war in Iraq? Nope, the troops are coming home sure, but the state department is still controlling an army of 5,500 contractors and BLACKWATER MERCENARIES after Hilary Clinton pledged in 2008 to ban the company from federal contracts. Instead, they got a $974 million contract to protect the still expanding massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad that is the size of 94 FOOTBALL FIELDS.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/obama-iraq-eternal/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/exclusive-blackwater...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-sta...
- Reduced military spending? Almost, but no.
http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Budget-cut/2...
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/26/nation/la-na-defense...
- Increased Veteran’s benefits? Not anymore!
- Saved the world from global financial collapse? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You gotta be kidding me, now THIS is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard! Tell that to Greece, they currently have the longest bread lines since the great depression and with our national debt skyrocketing daily it’s only a matter of time until we’re next! Get your money out of the banks and stock up on supplies because this ship is sinking FAST.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/comfortably-numb_112011
http://etfdailynews.com/2012/05/28/the-start-of-an-economic-...
- Hired more border patrol agents than Bush? True, but the National Guard is no longer there to beef them up.
- He quit smoking? True, but I bet he really needs one considering everything on this list.
Oh, and Obama:
- renewed the Patriot Act;
- didn’t close Guantanamo;
- introduced the indefinite detention of American citizens in the NDAA;
- supports censorship of the internet;
- is spying on Americans;
- is conducting DRONE WARS all over the world;
- has a secret assassination list of American citizens;
- and, told the Congress that the defense department doesn’t have to answer to them because they take their orders from the U.N.
Miscellaneous, Yet Noteworthy Obama Developments
In a March 2007 interview, Obama condemned the Bush Administration for "[hiding] behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place, and the administration would be best served coming clean..." Fast forward to today (06/20/12) and we see Obama, the "hypocrite-in-chief" doing the exact same thing - Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote [because of "Operation Fast and Furious"]. So much for the transparency of the Obama administration.
Conclusion
The above represents only the tip of the iceberg with Obama. If you want a more thorough understanding of how he's just as bad as Bush, if not worse, then check this out. Your head will spin!
Long story short, Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin. They are puppets of Central Banksters, Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex. Both, in association with Congress, have sought to:
- grow the power and scope of federal government,
- engage in crony-capitalism moving this country ever-closer to corporate fascism,
- reward "too big to fail" institutions at the expense of the average American citizen,
- dramatically increase foreign and domestic entitlements,
- continue a hawkish foreign policy which:
- keeps us perpetually at war, benefiting the few at the expense of the many,
- feeds the hatred many foreign countries have for the U.S., because our lust for empire inevitably leads to "entangling alliances" and unwelcome interference in the business of sovereign nations.
- inspires terrorist attacks against the U.S., what's referred to as "Blowback" (many feel 9/11 was a consequence of blowback).
- spend us into oblivion,
- attack our Constitution thereby diminishing our civil liberties,
- increasingly control the lives and property of American citizens.
It's important to emphasize how complicit Congress is in all of the above. It's our responsibility as citizens to scrutinize the records of those we send to the Senate and the House of Representatives and remove them if they fail us. For example, only 7 out of 100 Senators and 136 out of 431 Representatives voted "no" on NDAA, because of the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The rest shit on the Constitution and our natural rights along with it.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
- From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
- From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
- From Courage to Liberty
- From Liberty to Abundance
- From Abundance to Selfishness
- From Selfishness to Complacency
- From Complacency to Apathy
- From Apathy to Dependency
- From Dependency back into Bondage
Where do you think the U.S. is on the above sequence? I think the evidence is clear that we have been slowly and steadily slipping "from Dependency back into Bondage" since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was established. Each war since then has given the federal government considerably more power over the people. And, the rate of that transition has sped up exponentially since 9/11, because our federal government and media have relentlessly fed our fears to further consolidate power and restrict our freedom.
The loss of our freedoms should make every American sick to our stomachs! Why are our civil liberties being eroded so quickly? When you connect all the above dots, from Bush to Obama, it doesn't create a pretty picture. The Obama administration and our Congress are preparing for something; something big. One can only speculate on what that may be. Domestic turmoil created by terribly irresponsible, decades-old economic and monetary policies? WWIII triggered by war with Iran based on long-term Middle East intervention for oil and preservation of the petrodollar? The simple corruption of power which leads to an ever increasing desire to control the lives of others to remain in power? A combination of all three? Whatever it is, it will not serve the best interests of the ordinary American citizen. Transfer of wealth will go to the elites where they may enjoy the preservation of their freedoms and increased protection from the unwashed masses (unless you have a bank account resembling that of, oh say... Mitt Romney, then that would be you). And, the average American? What happens to him or her? Simply put: more poverty and less freedom. What are you going to do about it?
Let’s be real. There is a limit to what we can prepare for in life. Yes, even the almighty federal government is limited in this regard. Absolute safety or security does not exist. Forgive my morbidity, but we’re all going to die. Nothing we do can prevent it. It’s just a matter of when and how. That’s why liberty is so precious. When a man is free, he can live his life how he sees fit no matter how long or short that life may be. That’s why liberty is worth fighting for and even dying for when necessary. That's why Patrick Henry cried, "give me liberty or give me death!" Our founding fathers believed this is true and so should you for one simple reason: the alternative is slavery (in one form or another), and that's no way to live. Do not let the great American experiment perish from the earth without a fight. There are many ways to fight injustice and tyranny. Pick one (or more) that works for you, and do it. One very easy and painless way: vote Ron Paul.
Two quotes by Benjamin Franklin come to mind:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
One very important point: Just because you may not have felt, or cannot perceive, the affects of the above policies in your own life doesn't mean others haven't, and it doesn't mean you or one of your loved ones won't in the future. I hope that never happens, but understand - we are all vulnerable to the abuses of power.
___________________________________________________________________________________________