Agraulis

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford (via thereasonableradical)

“‎We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” David Rockefeller, 1994 (via yahairalfaro)

“For more than century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family from the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world if you will. It that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller (via for-madmen-only)

“With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon’s Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military—and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.” Al Franken (via azspot)

(via azspot)

“

The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540) has passed both houses of Congress and with it has authorized the government to use the military to round up and detain whomever it deems to be a ‘threat’. The accused will have no rights and will be subject to indefinite detainment without a trial; possibly for their entire lives.

Those that wish to squabble with the semantics of the bill as it applies to U.S. citizens will find their arguments quite moot. A close examination of the wording of the bill will see that the vagueness of it purposely creates holes big enough to float an aircraft carrier through.

The questions that this bill raises are beyond the normal ones dealing with the constitutionality of Congress’ actions; we must now ask if Congress is treasonous. The Framers of the Constitution included what constitutes an act of treason. It states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” – Article III, Section 3

If the National Defense Authorization Act is treasonous then it must be established as an act of war. So then, how is war defined in its most principled terms?

John Locke, who influenced the thinking of the Constitution’s Framers, defined war as such:

“[I]t is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom – i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that in the state of Nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.” – John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Book II, Chapter 2. …

Has Congress fulfilled this definition of war? Are they taking away what is rightfully ours as citizens, as people?

John Adams considered a similar situation with the British Empire to be so. In observing the court case where James Otis fought against the writs of assistance Adams heard Otis state, among other arguments, the following:

“A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire.”

Although James Otis lost his case John Adams saw these events as a spark for the American Revolution stating:

“Then and there the child ‘Independence’ was born.”

Cases like these were the motivation not only for independence but for the writing of the Fourth Amendment. Our security from arbitrary intrusion and imprisonment by the government was considered a natural right; one given by ‘Nature and Nature’s God’, not by government.

Another of our natural rights is outlined in the Fifth Amendment which states “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Where are the warrants of the Fourth Amendment? Where is the due process of the Fifth Amendment? Where are our natural rights?

Government seeks to steal what is rightfully ours, not only as citizens but as humans. These powers are not theirs to claim. Congress seeks to compel us by force to that which is against the right of our freedom.

Congress has not only passed a ‘law’ that is unconstitutional; it is much more than that. It is an act of war against the citizens of the United States of America (if not the world by its language).

According to Article III, Section 3 levying an act of war against the United States is treason. All members of Congress who voted for this bill and President Obama, if he signs it into law, are treasonous and should be held accountable as such.
…

Article III, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The Framers of the Constitution were purposeful in defining two conditions that could possibly constitute treason. The first was ‘levying War’. The second is in adhering to their enemies and giving them ‘Aid and Comfort. This second criteria is what we will discuss here.

Let us use the government’s own reasoning as to the fact that it considers us at war, what the enemies goals are and how Congress is aiding them with those goals.

Who is the Enemy? On September 20th, 2001 President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and outlined that we are at war:

“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country… Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

President Bush affirmed that, according to the government, the ‘terrorists’ are at war with us and we reciprocate that by ‘declaring’ war with them. Hence, the government has declared ‘terrorists’ the Enemy.

What about ‘Aid and Comfort’? The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If an act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or to assist its enemies in furtherance of their goal, aid and comfort has been given.

President Bush outlined the Enemies goal:

“Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” (Ibid.)

Terrorists hate us because we are free; they wish to destroy our freedoms, so claims President Bush. If that is the case, Congress has joined with our Enemy by the passage of H.R. 1540 since it destroys our natural rights, i.e. our freedom. The members of Congress that passed this bill also ‘hate our freedoms’. Ergo, they aid our Enemy.

President Bush went on to say:

“Americans have known the casualties of war — but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks — but never before on thousands of civilians.” (Ibid.)

Terrorists have used attacks on civilians as one of their methods. Congress allies itself with our Enemy by the depriving of our rights to search warrants and due process while declaring their ‘right’ to violently attack us. This is an attack on civilians. Whether one attacks 3,000 people at once or one at a time, the intent is the same.

That intent is shared with those of the ‘terrorists’. President Bush:

“By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions — by abandoning every value except the will to power — they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” (Ibid.)

Congress shares in the radical vision of the ‘terrorists’ as stated. To control, deprive and terrorize the American people by means of unfettered abuse. The aim is to have total control to act as they will; to tyrannize the citizens of this country.

What then should we do? Again, President Bush outlines our course of action:

“I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.” (Ibid.)

Congress itself defies these words by their actions. They seek to capitalize on the ‘war’ by using it to increase their own power; to crush our freedom just as those that are declared an Enemy supposedly wish to. They are convicted of allegiance with the Enemy by their own actions.

Is it not “terror” to threaten our homes with military invasion? Is it not terror to threaten a citizen with spending years if not life in a prison cell (at who knows where) without being able to plead your case? They have played Judas to President Bush’s call:

“After all that has just passed — all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them — it is natural to wonder if America’s future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.” (Ibid.)

There is not only intent in this case. There is action. If H.R. 1540 was voted down, then there would be only cause for raising an eyebrow at what was attempted. But there is not only attempt, there is intent. Congress has taken action against We the People. They join with the governments stated goal of the ‘terrorists’. Congress has betrayed our liberty. They have betrayed the blood of the fighters for Independence. They have betrayed us as citizens and they have betrayed those men and women who they send to ‘fight for our freedoms’. They themselves have Aided and Comforted the Enemy.

President Bush concluded his speech that night with fitting words of instruction for us as we battle against the ‘terrorists’ in the Capitol Building:

“Fellow citizens, we’ll meet violence with patient justice — assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America. Thank you.” (Ibid.)
…

[L]et us look at the unconstitutionality of that bill [the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540)], along with the principles that it violates; again, specifically the sections that allow for the President to use the military to round up and detain whomever he deems to be a ‘threat’.

Habeas Corpus has been an instrumental check on tyranny for hundreds of years. It was enshrined into our Constitution in Article I, Section 9 which states:

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The fact that the Framers placed this squarely in Article I means that it is a power of Congress. What the NDAA does is not only relinquish this power to the Executive office but permanently does away with habeas corpus (and effectively the Constitution in its entirety). With all of the constitutional power that Congress has given away over the last century perhaps Congress should do away with itself if it does not wish to hold its own responsibilities, but anyway…

In 1866 the Supreme Court heard the case of Ex Parte Milligan where Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps. They planned to use those weapons to fight against the government of Indiana.

On Oct. 5, 1864, Milligan and others were captured and tried by a military commission, acting under authority of the 1862 suspension of habeas corpus and the 1863 Habeas Corpus Act. He was sentenced by that commission to death. Milligan appealed that decision and his case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Among Milligan’s defense team was a future president, James A. Garfield, who told the court the government’s argument was that “martial law alone existed in Indiana; that it silenced not only the civil courts, but all the laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself; and that during this silence the executor of martial law could lay his hand upon every citizen; could not only suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but could create a court which should have the exclusive jurisdiction over the citizen to try him, sentence him, and put him to death.”

Milligan was set free by the court’s final decision. Justice David Davis wrote in his opinion: “Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion,” but only from a real one. “Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.” This had clearly been the case in Indiana in 1864, as even the government’s lawyers admitted.

We may ask, Have we suffered invasion by an enemy to the extent that our courts are no longer operational? Have we reached a point where threats from perceived enemies have caused our society to break down? This type of a situation is the only Constitutional grounds for suspending Habeas Corpus. This is not currently the situation in our country. Legal precedent holds that this Congress has no grounds to suspend Habeas Corpus under Article I, Section 9. It is therefore illegal for them do to so at this time.

What this suspension intends is to create a tool for political suppression. What Congress has created is the modern day equivalent of the Sedition Act of 1798.

The Federal government at that time wished to suppress all dissent to its policies. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who “write, print, utter, or publish … any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government.

The powers that the NDAA provide have done the same. It allows, by its language, the ability of the government to imprison you or me for, perhaps, writing or reading what is before you now. For it allows the indefinite imprisonment for anyone deemed as a threat. The meaning of ‘threat’ will of course be defined by the President. Whatever the stated intent of Congress by means of this law does not matter. It is an open ended tool for silencing political opponents and not only expanding federal power but to codify it as absolute.

The Sedition Acts of 1798 were so repellant to both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that they vehemently rejected them in both the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and judged them unconstitutional.

To further show that this Congress holds our Constitution in contempt is that not only is Congress guilty of all that has been written in this series to this point, they also violate Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, …”

By giving the Executive office unchecked ability to potentially imprison citizens ad infinitum Congress has violated this clause. Is our government still a ‘republic’ if it has an Executive with limitless oppressive powers?

We face today what Franklin Pierce warned of in 1908:

“No free government can exist long unless there are a considerable number of men ready for unsparing examination and criticism of its weaknesses… It is the silent and gradual attacks that the citizen should watch with jealous care… When, however, usurpations may be hidden behind a government so complicated by checks and balances that the citizen cannot perceive them, the nature of the government may entirely change and the spirit of the original constitution be lost before he awakes to the danger. Such a form of government, which hides usurpation and is a constant temptation to usurpation, we certainly have.”

To those that fear for the life of our Constitution and the freedoms that were given to us, you no longer have to worry for its harm. The NDAA has administered the final dose of poison to it and our country. We may not feel the effects immediately, but like an exotic, slow acting toxin it will kill eventually.

And just as contemptible murderers that administer venom should be held accountable for their crimes, this Congress should be held for their mutinous actions of terrorism, treason and tyranny.”

”

Source: The Case for Treason
by The Ghetto Libertarian in Politics
December 2011 

I have made some very minor edits to this quoted article for the purpose of flow. I urge you to go to the original source to view the three parts that have been reproduced here as one. To my mind, this is a brilliantly written argument that calls for the full weight of the law to be exacted upon those who no longer abide by the first law of the land - the Constitution of the United States.

“

The Political One Percent of the One Percent

There are approximately 312 million people living in the United States. Yet just 26,783 (less than one in ten thousand) accounted for 24.3% of all political contributions in the 2010 election cycle.

Unlike the 99.99% of Americans who do not spend ten grand of their own money on an election cycle (mostly because they can’t afford to do so), The One Percent of the One Percent have unique access to candidates and party leaders. They know that candidates and parties need their money, and this presumably allows them to play a kind of gatekeeper role, allowing them to set the parameters of priorities of “legitimate” politics.

They congregate in a limited number of elite zip codes. Their concerns are not the concerns of ordinary Americans.

Some are motivated by ideological reasons. For others, the motivation is less partisan and more pragmatic: Many are lawyers and lobbyists, and even more are corporate executives, all seeking to influence legislation and policy.

Over time, more individuals are choosing to spend $10,000 or more on politics, and candidates and especially parties are becoming more reliant on them. With new vehicles for unlimited money in the 2012 election, a small number of individuals with both the means and the motive to spend lavishly on elections are poised to play an even greater role. To the extent that the priorities and interests of these elite donors are not representative of the country, there are good reasons to be concerned that their unique access is having a distorting impact on our politics.

” See supporting data and analysis at The Sunlight Foundation