You can't handel the truth's

The Truth Will Make You Free

Archive for the tag “constitution”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: I Answer To The New World Order, Not America

Senator Sessions: “We spend our time worrying about the UN, the Arab League, NATO, and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States.”

 

Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony 
The United States has ceded control of its affairs to international bureaucrats

Paul Joseph Watson 
Infowars.com 
Thursday, March 8, 2012 

Alex Jones: “This represents absolute 100 per cent proof that the military industrial complex which runs the United States is under the control of foreign central banks who are imposing a military dictatorship.” 

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

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

The New York Times Agrees With G. W. Bush, Implies The Constitution “Is Just A Piece of Paper”

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012

 

“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.

Freedom is the heart and soul of America and Western man. The New York Times aka the globalist paper of misinformation needs to relearn this basic truth, and stop bashing the very thing that made America great in the first place.
Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator Blog

Chief Justice Ducks Judicial Ethics Scandals In Annual Report

Federal courts function with integrity, according to a self-serving annual report on the judiciary that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued over the weekend.

His annual report issued on Dec. 31 in the middle of the New Year’s holiday weekend focused heavily on the need for public confidence. But he recommended nothing more for reform than current procedures, despite increasing calls for recusal or even impeachment because of conflict issues.

John Roberts o2 Chief Justice Ducks Judicial Ethics Scandals In Annual ReportChief Justice John Roberts

Noting at the outset baseball’s disgrace from player bribery in the 1919 “Black Sox” scandal, Roberts said he had “complete confidence” in the integrity of judges, including his Supreme Court colleagues.

That’s not good enough from the chief justice, who presides over both the nine-member high court and the Judicial Conference of the United States, which supervises the federal court system nationally.

It’s doubtless true that the vast majority of judges work honorably. But there’s lots of evidence of judges who have been enriched or otherwise co-opted by benefactors and political allies while protected by cronies and toadies. Here is a sample commentary Jan. 3 in Alabama, for example. It referenced the chief justice’s report in terms far different than the report’s coverage from Supreme Court beat reporters in the mainstream media, who necessarily must maintain access to judges and prosecutors.

More generally, critics increasingly suspect dire shortcomings in all manner of federal institutions, courts included.

Supreme Court US w 2010 Chief Justice Ducks Judicial Ethics Scandals In Annual ReportU.S. Supreme Court

So far, for example, 52 House Democrats have requested a House Judiciary Committee impeachment investigation of Republican Justice Clarence Thomas for false statements on his annual financial disclosure statements covering up a reported $1.6 million in payments and gifts, mostly to his wife, Virginia.

This is one basis for an effort by some Democrats to prevent Thomas from sitting on the Court’s upcoming review of the Obama-supported health care law. Democrats focus especially on his 2010 vote in a 5-4 ruling enabling corporation donations in federal elections that was won by the same Citizens United group that advocated for his confirmation in 1991 with massive television ads. The Citizens United ruling was central to planning by Virginia Thomas to lead a new non-profit called Liberty Central funded by conservatives to help corporations make political donations enabled by her husband’s vote with the court majority and to position herself as a key opponent of Obama’s health care law that her husband could help overturn.

In response, Republicans seek to target Elena Kagan, a Democrat, from reviewing the law’s constitutionality because of her work as solicitor general for the Obama Justice Department.

Foreseeing some of these problems, the non-partisan Justice Integrity Project I lead opposed her confirmation on civil rights grounds. We feared she was too closely aligned with the president on executive power issues. One such controversial Obama action that’s in the news since the weekend is the defense appropriation law he signed Dec. 31. It enables, among other things, military detention indefinitely without trial of U.S. citizens suspected of supporting terror.

Recusal issues are clearly on the court’s radar, as indicated by a landmark 5-4 ruling in 2009 that a West Virginia state Supreme Court justice who had received millions from a mine owner must recuse from a high-profile case involving the donor.

I wrote about a similar situation that year involving the notorious federal prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his state’s leading Democrat. His federal trial judge made many controversial pro-prosecution rulings while controlling a company that received some $300 million in federal contracts from the Bush administration. Whistle-blowers, including one swearing she was in on Republican planning to frame Siegelman, have alleged that the Bush Justice Department orchestrated the still-ongoing prosecution to remove Siegelman from politics, in part to help facilitate massive federal contracts and legalized gambling revenues for well-connected Republicans.

Just last week, new allegations arose in in Wisconsin regarding a Supreme court justice who received cut-rate legal services from an attorney frequently litigating before the justice.

Roberts cited no specifics in his report, whose release at 6 p.m. Saturday night on New Year’s Eve suggests a message more from duty than for public education. In it, the chief justice says:

I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties. We are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court’s vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.

To be sure, the Roberts mention of ethics provides a public service since the courts rarely comment on the topic at all during the year and also make it difficult for litigants and the rest of the public to obtain reliable and timely financial information on judges. Disclosures are in generalities and with a time-lag on the forms, which are primarily available courtesy of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.

Here’s what Roberts should have recommended:

  • Specific ethics standards and enforcement for Supreme Court justices, not just for judges on lower courts.
  • Reassessment by the court’s administrative office of financial disclosure procedures, which are heavily dependent on voluntary compliance by judges and opaque procedures for the public; and
  • Support, at least in general, for FBI and congressional investigations as oversight on well-documented criminal allegations against judges. These would include scrutiny of instances of clear-cut perjury during confirmation hearings.

Instead, the Bush-appointed Republican Roberts argues in essence that increased oversight is neither needed nor permissible under judicial independence mandated by the Constitution. But in a democracy, surely some reform must be Constitutionally permissible.

Recently, the presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich tapped into public concern about activist and otherwise unaccountable judges. His solution is fatally flawed because it relies, in essence, on politicians seeking reprisals against judges based on highly subjective standards.

The better reform is bipartisan commitment to improved procedures that increase accountability, whether the targets are high or low, Democrat or Republican. Little scrutiny exists currently except for the most obvious crimes.

“The Supreme Court affects the life of every American every day,” says former court clerk Edward Lazarus in his iconic study, Closed Chambers. Yet the court is an insular, self-protective body. Presiding over a vast nation, all nine attended Harvard or Yale Law School (although Justice Ruth Ginsberg transferred from Harvard to Columbia for her degree). All but Thomas are from the metro New York region. Its members socialize with one another, generally refrain from self-criticism or reform, and otherwise protect one another under a theory the Constitution makes them accountable to no one, not even their colleagues.

Roberts could help initiate better oversight procedures if he wanted. But his report proves, if nothing else, that it’s still business as usual in the judiciary — unless or until the public demands reform.

Misreading the Fight Over Military Detention: Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scruples

Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars.com
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.

However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwaldmight have jumped to the same conclusions.

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.

Post Navigation