You can't handel the truth's

The Truth Will Make You Free

Archive for the category “Martial Law”

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Advertisements

Christianity and gun owners in the crosshairs: Chilling tactic exposed

Doug Hagmann  Thursday, August 16, 2012

If you are an outspoken Christian in America, you need to be concerned. If you are an outspoken Christian in America who happens to be a gun owner, you need to be very concerned.  And if you are a Christian gun owner who disagrees with the Progressive anti-Christian agenda in America and have a platform to inform others, you better believe that you are under intense scrutiny. Sound like paranoid propaganda? Read on.

It’s one thing to say that there is a war against Christianity and an active agenda to disarm Americans, but it’s another thing altogether to watch it unfold, up close and personal.  And yet another to actually document an insidious but effective tactic that is presently being used to silence and disarm Christians right here in America. In this report, I will expose a new tactic being used by the atheistic communist supporters of the Obama regime to silence Christian critics and to disarm them at the same time.

I might have never known about this had it not been for our nightly radio program, the Hagmann & Hagmann Report. In fact, our show played a minor role in the events that transpired. Jason Ergoff, a 28-year old web designer and graphics artist from Scranton, Pennsylvania, called in to our show last week to comment on current events, including how Christianity seems to be under attack in America and across the globe. From the statements made by the CEO of Chick Fil-A regarding traditional families as defined by the Bible to the resurgence of attacks on Christians across the Middle East as a result of the “Arab Spring,” we conversed about how Christians are in the crosshairs now more than any other time in recent history. We talked about Barack Hussein Obama’s role in what seems to be overt antagonism toward Christianity and Biblical principles. Mr. Ergoff’s input to our show was a rational and welcome discourse about the events we see unfolding.

Mr. Ergoff called our program before and has always been articulate and well informed. His call last week was equally articulate and without unnecessary emotion or hype, just like his previous calls. He made his points in a very well-reasoned, rational and non-threatening manner and said nothing with which we could disagree.

Through our dialogue that included off air correspondence, we were delighted to learn that Mr. Egroff himself is hosting his own weekly radio program called Revelation News Radio, a show that provides his analysis of current events through the prism of the Holy Bible. As he is just getting started, he did a few shows leading up his weekly slot, including a show on August 7, 2012, a day after he called our program as a guest. After his call to our program, we moved on, and our program concluded without incident. This is when events began to get very interesting, and go very wrong for Mr. Egroff.

Monitoring the watchmen

As Mr. Egroff was seated at his computer preparing to listen to our program that began at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 8, 2012, he received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as “Officer Steve” from the city of Scranton Police Department, who told Jason that he was calling just to check on him, to see if he was “alright.” Jason, who never heard of “Officer Steve,” or really understood the nature of the call, responded that he was fine and had no problems where he might need the police. He was taken off guard by the call and became uneasy, especially since the officer was elusive in providing a legitimate reason for the call.

While our broadcast was playing on Jason’s computer, he received another telephone call from a “restricted” number. It was “Officer Steve” again, although this time he was calling from the front porch of Mr. Ergoff’s house. The officer reintroduced himself, and asked Jason to turn on the porch light and step outside as he wanted to speak to him. Knowing that he had done nothing wrong, Jason complied with the officer’s request. As he stepped onto the porch, “Officer Steve” was there to meet him, accompanied by another law enforcement officer.

I should note that Jason Ergoff is not stupid or naive, and sensed that had he not complied with the officer’s request, things might have gotten ugly. “It was a matter of choosing my battles,” he told me, but he was still not quite ready for what happened next.

The officer told Jason that the Scranton Police Department received a telephone call from a “friend” living in New York City who claimed to be concerned about Jason’s mental health. This friend works as a physical therapy assistant at a large New York City hospital.  It is important to note his “friend’s” professional position is well outside of the mental health practice.

According to the officer, Jason’s friend contacted his department, and claimed that he was “worried” about him, citing his recent talk about the Bible in general, Biblical prophecy in particular, and the role of the Obama regime in the larger picture detailed by prophecy. This “friend” has been listening to Jason’s calls to The Hagmann & Hagmann Report as well as Jason’s own recently started BTR radio show.

Additionally, Jason’s friend knew that he owns a couple of guns, none that are of much monetary value or the type people intent on doing harm would possess. Despite this, his friend expressed concern that Jason could possibly use the weapons in some nefarious manner. Based on Jason’s own admission, he rarely uses the guns to target practice and has little attachment to them. During my interview with Jason, he said that he did not care if he had a gun or not, they are simply not that important to him.

“You need to come with us”

The officer told Jason that he had to go with them based on a mental health complaint that originated solely from his friend, the physical therapist assistant in New York, who claimed that he was worried for Jason’s safety. At this point, Jason was under the control of the officers, and was not permitted to be alone as he entered his house to shut things down for the trip he was about to take.

The officers took Jason to the local hospital psychiatric ward for “evaluation.” For the next 18 hours, he was subjected to some of the most humiliating searches, probes, and questions by hospital personnel. Questions included those specific to his religious faith and what he thought about the government and Obama. Questions that were structured in such a manner that regardless of the answer, they would result in portraying him as a dangerous, gun-owning Christian zealot. All as a result of Jason expressing his non-violent, well reasoned, and articulate views on our show as well as his own. All ostensibly from the concern of one “friend” from another state and well over 100 miles away.

Jason Ergoff was indeed evaluated by two medical health professionals. Despite the manner in which Mr. Ergoff was picked-up, detained, probed, prodded and interviewed (some might call it an interrogation), he remained calm and did his best to comply. He believed that the medical professionals would find him in good mental health and realize that this was all a mistake. He could then use his experience to help others.

Christianity: the medical diagnosis of psychosis

Jason was indeed released after about 20 hours of evaluation. He was given his belt and shoelaces back, and all of his personal belongings taken from him upon admission. He was released without fanfare, without apology, and without explanation. But with little additional interaction, Jason was now labeled with the medical diagnosis of “psychosis” and urged to take medication that he states he does not need and does not want. Additionally, Jason was released under the condition that he gets rid of any and all firearms he owns and report to a crisis counseling center upon discharge.

This gets a bit more interesting when Jason, who felt it best to accommodate the evaluating doctors, reported to the crisis counseling center as instructed. Mr. Ergoff furnished the handful of paperwork to the crisis center worker who spent a few minutes looking over the documents. After a lengthy pause, she looked at Jason and made the following chilling observation as if it was a matter of routine: “So, you’re here because of your religious beliefs.” As Jason tells it, this was not a question, but a statement of fact.

As a career investigator, I’ve been exposed to people with mental health issues, and interviewed many. I know that it’s easy to be fooled, and that a person might appear normal, say the correct things, but then turn out to be a complete lunatic. I’ll admit that in Jason’s case, I expected to find just that scenario. I conducted a lengthy interview with Jason, asked him some very personal questions, and demanded to see documentation related to this incident. I was not about to get fooled by Jason or anyone else. To his credit, Mr. Ergoff complied with my every request and provided me with the hospital documentation I requested.

Watching the watchers who are watching the ‘watchmen’

After spending two days of constant research and investigation into his case alone, I must report here that there is something very wrong about this case, and it’s not Jason Ergoff. Despite the diagnosis of “psychosis,” he was permitted to keep his guns, at least for now. As for his “friend” who was so worried about his welfare, I’ve got his “number.” You see, one thing I did not tell Mr. Ergoff is that I was able to learn the identity of the man who turned him in as a threat to himself and society. I’ve tracked his IP addresses and his online activity. My investigation found that this is no ordinary case of someone being concerned about a friend’s welfare, but part of a larger agenda to silence the Christian conservatives and critics of this administration. I am holding that information and documentation closely, as I feel that Jason and perhaps others might need it when they come for his guns or even him once again.

By the way, the concerned friend showed just where his concern actually lies, and it certainly does not appear to be with Jason. That was clearly illustrated in a 3:00 a.m. phone call made to Jason by his friend, where he screamed at Jason for daring to mention the incident on our program, sans names, of course.

Lest you think this is an isolated case, I have since heard from five-(5) other individuals in different parts of the U.S. that this has happened to within the last thirty-(30) days. It appears the war against freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, openly professing one’s belief in God and the right to bear arms is now sufficient to earn you a medical diagnosis of “psychosis.”

Christian gun owners of America, be forewarne

Media Promotes Troops On Streets to “Cut Down on Crime”

» Media Promotes Troops On Streets to “Cut Down on Crime” Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!

.

St. Louis residents praise sight of military vehicles in neighborhoods

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, June 25, 2012

Following reports last week that U.S. Army humvees would be rolling down residential streets and highways in St. Louis as part of a training program, local news media channels featured interviews with residents who praised the sight of troops on the streets as a valuable crime-fighting tool similar to that used in foreign countries.

Media Promotes Troops On Streets to “Cut Down on Crime”

 

 

 

 

As we reported on Friday, the exercise is part of a U.S. Army program run by military police from Fort Meade, Maryland focused around training MPs from St. Louis how to drive heavily armored vehicles “on highways and on city streets.”

According to a Fox 2 St. Louis report, “people who live and work in the area think the army training is a good idea.”

Indeed, the report features interviews with two residents, one of whom states, “I think it’s the same way when you go to other countries…they don’t have police officers they have troops, and I think it kind of scares a lot of people…it might cut down on a whole lot of crime because they don’t know if they’re military or the police.”

“I think it’s fantastic because it might slow down some of the crime rate,” added another.

In a separate KSDK report, although acknowledging that some had expressed fears about martial law, the news channel emphasized how other residents had vowed to “stop and salute” the tanks as they rolled by.

While these news channels have framed the idea of troops on the streets as normal and reasonable, others have gone even further.

A joint drill between military and police in South Florida last month involving troops storming a building in the middle of the night, unannounced to local residents, was characterized by local media coverage not as a frightening example of how Americans are being acclimatized to accept a state of martial law but as a ‘cool tourist story’.

Why is the news media, in its editorial decision to feature interviews with residents who laud troops on the streets of America in a similar vein to despotic foreign countries, actively promoting the idea of martial law?

Having U.S. troops perform duties normally ascribed to law enforcement officers is forbidden under section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act, which states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Why is the news media giving editorial credence to something that is not only completely illegal but fundamentally anti-American and more in line with what you’d expect to see in the former Soviet Union or modern-day North Korea?

  • As Zero Hedge points out, the idea of troops from Maryland traveling all the way to St. Louis merely to teach other MPs to drive tanks doesn’t make sense unless one factors in the probability that this is an exercise in desensitization.

I have to say that this event, which is being labeled a “training exercise”, makes very little sense to me. U.S. Army troops all the way from Maryland running open exercises in armored personnel carriers on the busy streets of St. Louis? I know Maryland is a small state, but is there really not enough room at Ft. Detrick to accommodate a tank column and some troops? Are there not entire fake neighborhood and town complexes built with taxpayer dollars on military bases across the country meant to facilitate a realistic urban environment for troops to train in? And why travel hundreds of miles to Missouri? At the very least, this is a massive waste of funds.

On the other hand, such an action on the part of the Department of Defense makes perfect sense if the goal is to acclimate citizens to the idea of seeing tanks and armed military acting in a policing capacity. Just check out the two random idiots the local news affiliate picked to interview in St. Louis on the subject. Both state that they think the exercise is a “great idea”, because having the military on the streets would help to “reduce crime”.

The U.S. Army has been reluctant to provide details of the exercise, with army offices in St. Louis and Washington, D.C. refusing to return calls. When asked how residents should respond to the sight of armored vehicles being driven around their neighborhoods, U.S. Army Sergeant Cornelius Ivory discouraged citizens from taking video and photographs of the tanks and urged them not to get too close.

“They need to know to stay away from it,” Ivory told KSDK.

Over the course of the last 15 years, Infowars has documented numerous urban warfare training drills across the country which revolve around role playing exercises wherein troops are trained to fulfil law enforcement duties as well as incarcerating Americans in detention centers.

Exercises like the one currently taking place in St. Louis, scheduled to run until June 28, are part of the transition of the U.S. Army into a domestic police force, a role advocated by Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Raymond T. Odierno in a recent Foreign Affairs piece.

Watch the original newscast we featured in our report on Friday below.

*********************

Military Vehicles on the Streets of St. Louis – Martial Law Training ?

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Media Cover-up of Obama Impeachment Exposed

The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.

 

 

America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy

Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.

How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic, or better yet . . . a Constitutional Republic?

There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic, and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mentioned the word “democracy”.

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Isn’t that where we are today?

They knew very well the meaning of the word “democracy”, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner — We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy; but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.

Today we have a mobocracy occurring in our streets all across America. Sadly, such mobocracy or ‘mob rule’ was endorsed and encouraged by Sen. John McCain who praised the recent wave of pro-illegal immigration demonstrations by saying, “if the protesters hang tough they will succeed in forcing Congress to liberalize immigration laws. If such demonstrations continue, I think we will have a bill for the President to sign soon . . . The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we will prevail.” He was of course referring to the Senate’s massive illegal-alien amnesty bill S. 2611 which did in fact, pass. Was S. 2611 passed to appease the mob? If so, it is a perfect example of rule by mobocracy, which is a fundamental flaw of a democracy.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . .

Not only is our Constitution being ignored, the exact opposite is being encouraged by John McCain and seconded by all those who voted for S. 2611 in the Senate. If you want to preserve the Constitutional Republic you should vote out of office every single senator that voted for S. 2611.

Politicians, like all public servants, take an oath to serve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.  They don’t pledge allegiance to a political party, and ideology or and a specific group or individual.

However, rule by mobocracy is only a tiny part of what is happening here in America. The larger problem we are facing is related to those who would support and approve of mob rule. It is called tyranny. What is tyranny? Simply put, we are being governed by tyrants who have usurped the will of the people. Our government has become a raging bull elephant, no pun intended, and is totally out of control. We are well on the road to fascism, which was defined by Mussolini as the combining of capitalism and Communism.

There is underway . . . a betrayal of the American people by a government cabal who are bent on destroying our sovereignty in order to create a North American Union. The miscreants include many who function at the highest levels in our government. Many hold membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and pursue a subversive agenda. The cabal is deliberately circumventing the U.S. Congress and ‘We the People’ in blatant violation of our Constitution. Collectively they are committing treason. If you continue to believe that the illegal alien invasion is the biggest threat to America, you will never understand that there is something far more dangerous to our country called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP).

I urge you to educate yourself. If you have access to a computer you need to read what your own government has posted on their official websites such as the Whitehouse.gov, SPP.gov, State.gov and Canada.USembassy.gov. You will be aghast at the nearly complete destruction of our sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Constitution, laws, Republic, and freedoms they have already achieved. This heinous ongoing treason has been engineered by an entrenched cabal of legislators, courts, military brass, and government employees in this and prior administrations. The tyranny is being facilitated by hundreds of people embedded at all levels of the executive branch and Congress constituting a so called ‘Shadow Government’ who are working in concert to dismantle this country in plain sight. Their agenda was engineered by the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) and kept secret by a deliberately silent media who work in collaboration by treating the America people like mushrooms. We are kept in the dark and fed you know what . . . mislead by their propaganda.

If you don’t have a computer, get one. It is the last bastion of freedom to information and knowledge left to ‘We the People’. Be advised that the Congress is working hard to eliminate, curtail and control your access to the Internet as we speak.

Why is it Most Americans are Unaware of the CFR Organization?

David Rockefeller, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for 15 years (1970-1985), also founded and is the honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission. His father John D. and brother Nelson purchased and then donated the land beneath the UN for $8.5 million dollars, then claimed it as a charitable deduction.

As for how the machinations of the CFR have remained unnoticed . . . in 1991 in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller gloatingly said: “We’re grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government..” . . . Are you?

CFR member Richard N. Gardner, who in a 1974 article titled: “The Hard Road to World Order” wrote: In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down [and require] . . . an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.

And what does David Rockefeller say about his work?

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for 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 interest 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. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

What colossal arrogance! Like other globalists, he loses sight of man’s humanity and the very fundamental nature of what it is to be human. Mankind will always resist subjugation and will always struggle to have and maintain their freedoms; after all, for us Americans, it is the very essence of what it is to be an American.

The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its membership in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every Secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the [CFR] council. The trend continued as both Condalezza Rice and Colin Powell are members of the CFR.

Some others who have spoken out about the ‘Shadow Government’:

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, USN (Retd.), who was a member of the CFR for sixteen years. He wrote, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–They want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.”

Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962) said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

In a speech given on February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned America: “Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.”

In fact, the Constitution is far more than ‘outmoded,’ according to President Bush who rebuffed GOP leader’s request to soft pedal some parts of the ‘Patriot Act’ by saying: “I don’t give a goddamn . . . I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” Then, responding to an aid who stated: “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” Bush screamed back: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face . . . It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

As for the ‘bureaucratic elite’ of wealthy globalists who function as the ‘Shadow Government’ . . . their ultimate goal is a so called New World Order, which of course is not new but is, in reality, a One World Order. To that end, Franklin Delano Roosevelt managed to condemn their monopolist lust from the grave in a message found enshrined on his memorial in Washington, DC:

THEY (WHO) SEEK TO ESTABLISH SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REGIMENTATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS BY A HANDFUL OF INDIVIDUAL RULERS CALL THIS A NEW ORDER. IT IS NOT NEW AND IT IS NOT ORDER.

If you think about it, by sending our manufacturing base to Mexico or other foreign countries, the globalists have forced America to become global when in the past we were self-sufficient and produced all we needed for ourselves and exported our excess around the world. Now we are dependent on countries like Communist China, etc., to supply stores like Wal-Mart with nearly all of its merchandise.

The Shadow Government has begun their ‘race to the finish’ and has become ever more arrogant and bold. They have concluded that they are so close to complete conquest that they are ever more blatantly flouting our Constitution and laws than you can ever imagine in your wildest of dreams of hell on earth.

Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D. is a Researcher, Author and Founder of  StopTheNorthAmericanUnion.com

The Great Awakening

Chile’s Desaparecidos and Obama’s NDAA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 15, 2012

 

Investigative journalists in Chile have uncovered a number of previously unreported political executions under General Pinochet’s reign of terror, including the execution of the Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda.

More than 3,000 Chileans were “disappeared” after the CIA-plotted coup in Chile.

Investigative journalists at ArchivosChile patched together files from the Legal Medical Service, the General Cemetery, the Civil Registry and the Military Prosecutors. They discovered 890 politically motivated deaths between Sept. 11 and the end of December 1973, according to the Santiago Times.

Chile’s bloody coup was planned and orchestrated by the CIA after the Chilean people made the mistake of democratically electing a socialist, Salvador Allende. It was later revealed that then president Nixon had ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream” in Chile to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”

Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, played an instrumental role in the coup. He chaired the 40 Committee, a high-level enter agency group, that ordered the CIA to destabilize the country and plot a military coup installing a military dictatorship that lasted 17 years.

“The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves,” he said at the time. “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.”

Following he coup and the murder of Allende, Pinochet and his military created DINA, the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional. DINA served as the primary secret police organization for political repression in Chile under the military dictatorship.

 

DINA not only tortured political opponents, but also assassinated them. In 1976, working with the CIA, the French OAS and the Italian fascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, DINA assassinated former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier and American political activist Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC.

Pinochet’s regime also initiated Operation Condor, a program for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in much of Latin America. Operation Condor was given tacit approval by the United States and resulted in the murder of thousands of activists, including an estimated 30,000 socialists, trade-unionists, and relatives of activists in Argentina.

The United States now has its own version of Operation Condor under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on December 31, 2011 by Obama. In addition to issuing a carte blanche to indefinitely detain citizens – in Chile, they are called the desaparecidos, the disappeared – the legislation reinstates “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture. It compliments an earlier decision that Americans are legitimate military targets and may be assassinated – as cleric Anwar al-Awlaki allegedly was – on orders of an executive branch that has since the Bush years increasingly resembled an imperial presidency.

“The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act,” writes Paul Craig Roberts today.

We now live in a military dictatorship little different than the one that ruled Chile. As of yet, the military is not “disappearing” Americans in large numbers and herding them into sports stadiums little different than the National Stadium in Santiago where 40,000 political prisoners were detained under Pinochet’s CIA-enabled reign of terror.

Political prisoners held at a sports stadium in Chile.

How long before the military in America sets up its own Caravan of Death – a notorious roving death squad in Chile – or establishes counterparts to Colonia Dignidad, the ship Esmeralda or numerous other torture and execution centers in Chile?

We are one false flag terror attack away from a full-blown Chile-style police state. The establishment media assures us the next attack will not come from al-Qaeda cave dwellers, but rather domestic “extremists” and “lone wolf” terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security and the globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations assure us that the coming terror will resemble Oklahoma City in 1995 – in other words it will be perpetuated by “rightwing extremists,” defined by the DHS, MIAC and “fusion centers” around the country as returning veterans, Second Amendment activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.

Following that event, the police state apparatus the state has meticulously crafted over the last twenty years will be put into full motion and it will make anything Pinochet and his military did to the people of Chile pale in comparison.

Meet the White Obama

 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 11, 2012

 

Mitt Romney, the establishment declared GOP front-runner, is the white Obama. He earns this title because on crucial issues he mirrors Barack Obama. Consider:

Climate agenda and carbon taxes:

He has stated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is real. In 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney imposed strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a memo issued by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Hale, the Romney administration bragged that it was “the first and only state to set CO 2 emissions limits on power plants.”

In short, Romney did what Obama’s EPA wants to do now. It is revealing that Romney was advised on this drastic step by none other than Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren.

In his book, No Apology, Romney advocates carbon taxes through a “tax-swap plan” and declares that resultant “higher energy prices would encourage energy efficiency.” The plan is favored by economist and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw and many other “Republican-leaning economists.” In 2007, Mankiw wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled “One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax.” He wrote that “if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.”

Obama also wants to push a carbon tax on the American people and declared his intention to do so before he took office. “President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote on November 19, 2008.

Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent fits right into the globalist plan to attain the ultimate civilization-killing goal of zero carbon emissions, as espoused by the Carnegie Institute.

 

Romneycare:

In December, Romney told Fox News that he stands by the health care at gunpoint plan implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts. “The plan is not perfect, there are things that I’d change in it, but I’ll stand by the things we’ve done,” he said, defending the plan.

Obama and the Democrats were so enthralled with Romney’s statist health care boondoggle, they based their plan on it.

“Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act,” NBC reported last October.

Abortion:

Like a good Demopublican, Romney supported a woman’s “right” to kill her fetus – that is before, as a “conservative,” he changed his mind – or as it is usually called, he flip-flopped on the issue.

He was so adamant about abortion, he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2004, but now supports the Pence amendment sponsored by Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence aimed at eliminating all Title X grants for Planned Parenthood. He even instituted tax-funded abortion on demand two years after his orchestrated “pro-life” conversion.

Obama, of course, is “pro-choice” and has appointed a number of outspoken pro-abortion advocates to his administration. If elected, no doubt Romney will do the same.

Illegal immigration:

Mitt claims to oppose illegal immigration, but does not advocate sending illegals back – or, apparently, even arresting them for breaking the law.

“Those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to have their status identified,” he said in November.

He said nothing about illegal immigrants paying back taxes, learning English, not having criminal records, or being deported and going through legal channels for immigration.

Romney sounds a lot like Obama, who said: “I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn’t just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels.”

Mitt Romney is basically indistinguishable from Obama and supports the same globalist agenda, albeit with “conservative” flourishes. His flip-flopping on key issues is designed to make his pre-arranged agenda more palatable to so-called conservatives, who will naturally be hoodwinked as they are every election cycle.

If elected, Romney will become the white Obama. The only job requirement will be an ability to convincingly read a teleprompter and follow orders handed down form his globalist masters the same as his predecessor.

Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t

 

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 31, 2011

NOTE: First, it should be remembered that the Obama White House pressured Congress to add the controversial language to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin. Second, Signing Statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the character of the chief executive and does signal a dangerous trend in de facto rule by “executive fiat”– and does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written. From Wikipedia: the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor’s Note: Legal-loophole language for Congress’ prior language not giving deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act “Slip Into Tyranny”

Written by Joe Wolverton, II   
Friday, 30 December 2011 10:48

 

A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. The tyrannical assumption of power by the President and the cession of unheralded power to him by the Congress has taken place precisely as Dr. Paul warned.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”
What of the NDAA? Are there indeed provisions contained therein that so ferociously tear at the constitutional fabric of our Republic?
In a word — yes.
This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.
A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”
The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.
In his assessment of the danger inherent in such acts, Paul is in good company. This suspension of habeas corpus, a right central to Anglo-American freedom from despotism for over 500 years, was described by Alexander Hamilton as one of “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
Congressman Paul eloquently expressed his assessment of such an assault on liberty:
The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
As reported by The Hill, in a phone message to supporters, Paul cited the Founders and their intent to bequeath to their descendants a government fettered in such a way as to threaten as little as possible man’s innate freedom:
The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.
Adding insult to injury, Congress has stuffed the bill full of funding for illegal and unconstitutional foreign wars so that the American people will pay over $670 billion dollars for the privilege of being deprived of their God-given rights and for the building of the American empire.
This appalling story doesn’t end there, however. The NDAA’s rap sheet of crimes against the Constitution is long. As Congressman Paul explained:
The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal counsel. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.
While all the foregoing is harrowing and enough to make any reasonable man fear for the future of this Republic, there is another aspect of the law that is perhaps more frightening still. That is the vagueness of the terms. Terms so ill-defined are ripe for the wresting and within the penumbras of these provisions could be found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that could force anyone into a predetermined “terrorist” hole.
Ron Paul sets forth the source of such chilling concern as contained in the NDAA:
It is no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces. How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Despite the bipartisan and bicameral support for the defense budget bill, President Obama originally vowed to veto the measure over his disagreement with the delegation of power over the cases of detainees.
He has since withdrawn his objection and has signaled his intent to sign the bill into law.
The crux of the White House’s opposition to the NDAA was President Obama’s desire that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should have plenary power over the disposition of issues related to the custody and prosecution of all terror suspects detained domestically.
The Obama administration insisted that cutting out the FBI would reduce the overall effectiveness of investigations, as well as hamstring the efforts of intelligence officers from gathering reliable intelligence from those believed to be fighting against the United States in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Specifically, the White House promised to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, [or] protect the nation.”
Such swords disguised as shields are reminiscent of the words of James Madison. The Father of the Constitution warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”
Again, Ron Paul finds himself in the company of the Founders. In his closing remarks, Congressman Paul cited very succinctly the indictment that should be handed down by the American people against the NDAA:
The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.

Post Navigation