The impeachment of war criminal Barack Obama has begun but the globalist controlled traitor media is blacking this huge news out.
Appearing on video on Monday morning, al-Zawahri said his organization has made some changes since the assassination of its former head, Osama Bin Laden, in May of last year. “We in Al-Qaeda learned our lesson. We now know not to mess with America. We want to be friends because of our common interests and goals. We have decided to work with the Obama administration in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and throughout the Middle East.”
In Washington, Al-Qaeda’s stunning change in its policy towards America has received support among the most hawkish elements. “Al-Qaeda is obviously not the perfect ally. But we desperately need troops to change the regime in Syria, and if Al-Qaeda fighters want to assist us in this international effort, whether directly or indirectly, I’m all for it,” said a Pentagon official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity.
Meanwhile, in Syria the Free Syrian Army is anticipating a rise in its recruitment levels because of Al-Qaeda’s call to Jihadists across the region to join the democratic revolution in Syria.
Many anti-Assad rebels are wearing Bin Laden t-shirts reminiscent of the famous Che t-shirt as a sign that they will carry on their martyr’s heroic cause. In cities captured by the Free Syrian Army the image of Bin Laden graces the walls of many government buildings.
At the United Nations, news of Al-Qaeda’s entry to Syria has been greeted with enthusiasm. International human rights groups have intensified their criticism of the Assad regime in recent weeks and call on President Assad to give up power.
American, French, Israeli, and British special forces are expected to join the Free Syrian Army’s quest for freedom and dignity next month. It is very possible that Al-Qaeda fighters will fight alongside American veterans from the successful freedom operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whether or not they will recognize each other from their previous interactions is an impolite question that should be suppressed in order to advance the greater cause of revolution in a badly governed country run by a despotic and demonic dictator.
Posted by Saman Mohammadi at 8:47 PM
February 9, 2012
The mysterious hacktivist group Anonymous has captured the following clip from a Department of Homeland Security video feed. It shows King Dung Beetle Napolitano and her minions during a DHS feeding frenzy, eating their favorite dish.
Of course, the above is obviously satire, but you get the point.
“Wolverine: Magneto’s right: there is a war coming. Are you sure you’re on the right side?
Storm: At least I’ve chosen a side.” – X-Men (2000, Director Bryan Singer/Screenwriter Tom DeSanto).
“Col. Claus von Stauffenberg: I’m a soldier, I serve my country. But this is not my country. I was lying out there bleeding to death, thinking, if I die now, I leave nothing to my children but shame.” – Valkyrie (2008, Director Bryan Singer/Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie).
“The Constitution has seen better days,” declares Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, in his new piece called: ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World.
Liptak won’t tell you, but the Constitution is dead thanks in large part to the fact that the New York Times has judiciously covered up the Bush administration’s crimes against the Constitution, beginning on day one when G. W. and company stole the White House.
The article seems mild and tame on the surface, but once you scratch away the sugar-coated propaganda you see the total contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is obvious why the “paper of record” is not interested in sticking up for the foundation of the United States of America: it wants to destroy the United States of America.
Indeed, the New York Times is an anti-American paper in the most clear sense of the term. It has let administration after administration chip away at the Constitution with the chisel of globalist and CIA propaganda, so why stop now? In these last days of the American empire, the shadow CIA is scattering the Constitution to the wind. So it would be backward and stupid for the Times to turn back the clock this late in the game and restore what it has tried to destroy for the last fifty years.
After the CIA’s assassination of JFK and the CIA-Mossad attacks on 9/11, how can any propaganda outlet like the New York Times save face and say sorry? The editorial staff of the New York Times, as well as the editorial staff of most other American and Western papers, have given up on America and on the rule of law. They are part of a treasonous globalist plot to force America and all nations to obey a global dictatorship run by criminal banks and fascist corporations.
In the past, these fascist globalist revolutionaries waged a covert and psychological war against the U.S. Constitution and the American people. But they have grown tired of pretending. 9/11 was their coming out party. A nuclear 9/11 may be finish off America for good.
The media traitors and globalist revolutionaries may be out of touch with reality and the common people, but that isn’t stopping them from showing their true fascist and authoritarian colours. Snakes like to show skin and stick out their tongue at their unassuming prey. That’s what they do.
If you think the Globalist and Zionist snakes have had fun raping the laws of America and plundering public treasuries from Washington to Baghdad, just wait for the next round of wars and bailouts. We haven’t seen nothing yet. Iraq was a prelude to Iran, and the 2008 bank bailout was a prelude to the coming global economic breakdown.
But there is a problem. Washington’s crisis of legitimacy is rearing its head into the popular, mainstream consciousness of America and the world. 91% of the American people disapprove of Congress. Pretty soon it will be 99%. Members of Congress have lost the people and the military. The only support they have is from an evil gang of international banksters who steal trillions of dollars from American taxpayers to pay their bills and keep them in office.
But the globalist crooks have an escape plan: global genocide and an authoritarian world government. They want to build a Global North Korea on the ashes of the American flag and the flags of other nations such as Iraq, Iran, Israel, Canada, and England. Nothing stands in their way but the truth of history and the good people of Earth.
Why are Washington’s planetary terrorists so hostile to the U.S. Constitution and the American people? Because they are deathly afraid of the power of both.
Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones write in their article, “Globalist Campaign Calls for Abolishment of Constitution,” that, “what really irks the elite is the idea that government only exists by the consent of the governed and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” as the Declaration of Independence states. In other words, it is the right of the people to revolt against government – preferably through peaceful means, but by violent revolution if need be, as Thomas Jefferson argued – when it becomes an oppressive tyranny, as it now is.”
On his radio broadcast on Wednesday, February 8, Alex said that the globalist criminals “have got to openly say ‘get rid of the Constitution’ in front of everybody because they’ve basically already gotten rid of it, and their criminals and they know it indicts them.”
We will find out the weight of the Constitution once the weight of the Dollar falls. G. W. called the Constitution “a piece of paper.” The paper of record agrees him, as does the current deranged and sociopathic President.
The question we should be asking is does an eighteenth century political document written by enlightened and liberty oriented philosophers apply to bloodthirsty and genocidal psychopaths in the 21st century who murder innocent people in a global game of terror? Can any law restrain lawless, shameless, amoral, and ruthless power brokers? If they don’t follow the golden rule, then how can we expect them to follow the U.S. Constitution and international law?
In my eyes, the Constitution can’t be destroyed by criminals who don’t recognize any laws. The Constitution and Bill of Rights can come alive again if a new generation of brave men are willing to pour their blood into these dead documents and sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom.
The values of freedom, personal responsibility, and individual conscience that have raised America to the status of a global empire and enriched Western Civilization above every other civilization must be preserved in our time. Why despoil the sacred ground of liberty that produced such a rich and glorious civilization?
The mean-spirited fascist globalist revolutionaries want the people to live in poverty and ignorance, and accept permanent slavery as a fact of 21st century life. But there is another, more brighter future, if we can only see it.
Instead of degrading man, and trashing America and the West, as the globalist terrorists want us to do, we should preserve the best of the West and leave the rest behind. The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence are among the treasures of Western civilization and must be preserved, both in spirit and in form. If they are just meaningless pieces of aged paper then what does that make America? Nothing but a pile of dirt.
America must not settle for dirt. It can aim higher.
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.
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.
FEMA Continuity of Government Plans Prep Total Takeover of Society, Dispatching Military Domestically Under Economic Collapse Emergency.
Paul Craig Roberts
December 5, 2011
During an interview with RT on December 1, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.
These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them.
An article by Dahlia Lithwickin Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote: “The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department’s national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed.”
I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples.
However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war . As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”
The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.
By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.
A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detentionsupports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”
In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.
Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.