Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

wtf

Provide any video that help other member need.

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:22 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q


Thank You for Your Service?
by Laurence M. Vance



http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance250.html
It is without question that Americans are in love with the military. Even worse, though, is that their love is unqualified, unconditional, unrelenting, and unending.

I have seen signs praising the troops in front of all manner of businesses, including self-storage units, bike shops, and dog grooming.

Many businesses offer discounts to military personnel not available to doctors, nurses, and others who save lives instead of destroy them.

Special preference is usually given to veterans seeking employment, and not just for government jobs.

Many churches not only recognize veterans and active-duty military on the Sunday before holidays, they have special military appreciation days as well.

Even many of those who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and do not support foreign wars hold the military in high esteem.

All of these things are true no matter which country the military bombs, invades, or occupies. They are true no matter why the military does these things. They are true no matter what happens while the military does these things. They are true no matter which political party is in power.

The love affair that Americans have with the military – the reverence, the idolatry, the adoration, yea, the worship – was never on display like it was at the post office the other day.

While at the counter shipping some packages, a U.S. soldier, clearly of Vietnamese origin in name and appearance, dressed in his fatigues, was shipping something at the counter next to me. The postal clerk was beaming when he told the soldier how his daughter had been an MP in Iraq. Three times in as many minutes I heard the clerk tell the soldier – with a gleam in his eye and a solemn look on his face – "Thank you for your service." The clerk even shook the soldier’s hand before he left.

I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing, and I am no stranger to accounts of military fetishes in action.


Aside from me not thanking that soldier for his service – verbally or otherwise – I immediately thought of four things.

One, what service did this soldier actually render to the United States? If merely drawing a paycheck from the government is rendering service, then we ought to thank every government bureaucrat for his service, including TSA goons. Did this soldier actually do anything to defend the United States, secure its borders, guard its shores, patrol its coasts, or enforce a no-fly zone over U.S. skies? How can someone blindly say "thank you for your service" when he doesn’t know what service was rendered?

Two, is there anything that U.S. soldiers could do to bring the military into disfavor? I can’t think of anything. Atrocities are dismissed as collateral damage in a moment of passion in the heat of battle by just a few bad apples. Unjust wars, we are told, are solely the fault of politicians not the soldiers that do the actual fighting. Paul Tibbets and his crew are seen as heroes for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Before he died, Tibbets even said that he had no second thoughts and would do it again. I suspect that if the United States dropped an atomic bomb tomorrow on Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing everyone and everything, and declaring the war on terror over and won, a majority of Americans would applaud the Air Force crew that dropped the bomb and give them a ticker-tape parade.

Three, why is it that Americans only thank American military personnel for their service? Shouldn’t foreign military personnel be thanked for service to their country? What American military worshippers really believe is that foreign military personnel should only be thanked for service to their government when their government acts in the interests of the United States. Foreign soldiers are looked upon as heroic if they refuse to obey a military order to shoot or kill at the behest of their government as long as such an order is seen as not in the interests of the United States. U.S. soldiers, however, are always expected to obey orders, even if it means going to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Libya under false pretenses.


And four, what is a Vietnamese man – who most certainly has relatives, or friends or neighbors of relatives, that were killed or injured by U.S. bombs and bullets during the Vietnam War – doing joining the U.S. military where he can be sent to shoot and bomb foreigners like the U.S. military did to his people?

And aside from these four things, I’m afraid I must also say: Sorry, soldiers, I don’t thank you for your service.

I don’t thank you for your service in fighting foreign wars.
I don’t thank you for your service in fighting without a congressional declaration of war.
I don’t thank you for your service in bombing and destroying Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t thank you for your service in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
I don’t thank you for your service in expanding the war on terror to Pakistan and Yemen.
I don’t thank you for your service in occupying over 150 countries around the world.
I don’t thank you for your service in garrisoning the planet with over 1,000 military bases.
I don’t thank you for your service in defending our freedoms when you do nothing of the kind.
I don’t thank you for your service as part of the president’s personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.
Thank you for your service? I don’t think so.

Last edited by lostandfound on Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

 

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:59 am

BOBT12 wrote:Or kill you? :(

Our Troops do NOT Protect Our Freedom and We Should Stop Thanking Them for Doing So.
This is a sad fact. The Troops are working for a group of kill-crazy-con-men (and women, think BroomHillery) that go by many names, such as, political elite (Barry Joker Obama), Banksters (Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, Helicopter Ben), NWO (Dirtbag Rockefeller, KissASSinger), etc. The bottom-line, is that this is change that we CAN'T BELIEVE IN, unless we want to join Gaddafi!


Are those just frontmen? who is at the top of the pyramid?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111k.asp
http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_4.pdf
Veterans Day honors those citizens who fought in the U.S. government’s wars — wars supposedly waged to preserve Americans’ liberty. Most Americans uncritically accept this last part, and believe they owe the U.S. military a debt of gratitude for their freedom and independence.

This belief is so widely held that it has become a tenet of the country’s civic faith. However, it is just that — an article of faith — for there is scant evidence in history to support it. The unpleasant truth is that Americans have been continually led into unnecessary wars — wars that have actually infringed on American freedom and prosperity — by generations of duplicitous and megalomaniacal politicians.

This truth may be difficult to accept, especially for veterans who understandably want to believe their military service has been for a noble purpose. Nevertheless, concern for their feelings should not override the truth.

War entails confiscatory taxation, crushing debt, inflation, government management of the economy, regimentation, and infringements of civil liberties. War is big government on steroids.

James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, who is often called the father of the Constitution, pointed out:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

Has not Madison been vindicated by the American experience over the last century? Since 1898, there has been a stupendous growth in the size and scope of the federal government, and this expansion of state power has been largely a consequence of war. America’s wars have led to such accretions of executive power that the U.S. president now behaves like a Caesar: imprisoning, torturing, waging war when he pleases, and even killing people without so much as a habeas corpus hearing.

Now, many will take issue with my interpretation of American history. They may also point out that our modern world is much more complex and menacing than the one James Madison inhabited, and therefore his admonition, however eloquent, is now obsolete. After all, the U.S. government can’t have a horse-and-buggy foreign policy in the age of the ICBM.

But the fact that a few governments have at their disposal weapons that could wipe out civilization in an afternoon doesn’t necessarily mean the U.S. government must have an interventionist foreign policy. If anything, the existence of nuclear arsenals is an argument for extreme caution and restraint.

The American Empire and World War I

America’s ruling elite made a conscious decision to pursue an overseas empire by expanding into the Pacific via war with Spain (1898) and intervening in Europe via the Great War (1917).

Of course, their imperial ambitions were masked behind humanitarian rhetoric of peace, freedom, and democracy. But, ironically, wartime mobilization resulted in gross violations of civil liberties at home; the U.S. government imposed military conscription and imprisoned individuals for merely speaking out against WWI. In the final analysis, Woodrow Wilson proved to be a much greater threat to Americans’ liberty than the Kaiser.

And what did the sacrifice of 117,000 American lives in World War I accomplish? U.S. intervention had disastrous long-term consequences, as it ultimately led to the rise of National Socialism in Germany and Bolshevism in Russia. Revisionist historian Jim Powell explains,

Preoccupied with his good intentions, Wilson never seemed to have considered the possibility that intervening in Europe might do worse than fail to achieve peace. Because of historic resentments and staggering battlefield casualties, there was a lot of bitterness in Europe. Governments were nearly bankrupt, and people were hungry. They wanted vengeance for their suffering. The political situation was explosive. If one side were able to achieve a decisive victory, the temptation would be strong to seek retribution. So, Wilson intervened, enabled the Allied Powers to achieve a decisive victory, and the result was the vindictive Versailles Treaty with devastating political consequences that played out in Germany and around the world.

Apparently thinking only about what he wanted, Wilson pressured and bribed the Russian Provisional Government to stay in the war, when he ought to have known that country had been falling apart ever since it entered the war in 1914. Wilson ought to have known that millions of Russian peasants weren’t going to be affected much one way or the other by what happened on the Western Front, the only thing that Wilson cared about. He ought to have known that Russian peasants were deserting the Russian Army by the thousands, to go home and claim land, and soon there wouldn’t be any army to defend the Provisional Government. If Wilson didn’t know these things, he didn’t have any business trying to play an international war game. Wilson’s blunders made it easier for Lenin to seize power on his fourth attempt in 1917, leading to more than seven decades of Soviet communism.

World War II

Millions of America’s young men were sent overseas to war after Japan’s raid on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Germany’s declaration of war four days later. Those belligerent acts had come only after repeated warlike provocations by the United States. Had there been an honest man in the White House who genuinely desired peace, rather than the mendacious and bellicose Franklin D. Roosevelt, it is very possible that war with Japan and Germany would have been avoided.

Japan’s ambitions in Asia in no way threatened American liberties, and the same could be said of Germany’s ambitions in Europe. Despite FDR’s lurid and absurd claims of Hitler’s desire for global conquest, Germany had neither the intention nor the capability to mount an attack on North America. It is important to remember that from the American perspective the Second World War was fought “over there,” and that the U.S. military in combating the Axis Powers was not defending the liberty of the American people.

The domestic consequences of “the Good War” were baleful. Vast new powers were concentrated in Washington, and the last remnants of federalism were crushed under the march to war. Just like in 1917, the U.S. economy was nationalized in the interest of wartime mobilization. FDR imposed military conscription and tight press censorship. His utter contempt for the Constitution was best illustrated by his executive order to incarcerate Japanese-Americans for the duration of the war, a shameful edict that aroused little opposition in Congress and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the United States and its allies claimed victory in 1945, the war exacted an enormous material toll. Europe and much of Asia lay in ruins, with the butcher’s bill exceeding 50 million lives, mostly civilians.

The Cold War

WWII also ushered in the age of nuclear weapons and created an adversary far more menacing than Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ever were. The Cold War against the USSR continued the flow of tax dollars into the enlarged military establishment, and it was used as a pretext to create clandestine intelligence agencies, thus raising the specter of secret government in America.

Despite the various domino theories that cold warriors used to justify U.S. military intervention in Korea and Vietnam, these wars had nothing to do with America’s security or the freedom of the American people. They were essentially civil wars precipitated by artificial divisions drawn by outside powers, namely the United States. Furthermore, North Korea and North Vietnam were distant, impoverished, and war-ravaged nations with no capacity to attack or invade the United States.

Conclusion

Most Americans have been beguiled by the official propaganda, and they accept the simpleminded notion that America’s wars have been waged to keep them safe and defend their freedoms, when the opposite is closer to the truth.

Eighty years ago, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, lamenting his career, said,

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Butler expanded on his thoughts in “War Is A Racket,” a book describing how the U.S. military is often used, not to defend the country, but to advance the narrow interests of the political and financial elite. Although his book was concerned primarily with America’s entry into World War I, the general’s conclusions could be applied to all American wars of the past century

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3182
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:26 am

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.” – Bertrand Russell

Human beings on Earth like to blow off the truth by claiming that it is simply nonsense, calling it, for example, "funny," "hilarious," or "entertaining." In addition, they automatically disregard the truth messenger as being a "standard-issue schizophrenic who is obviously out of touch with reality." People desperately try to paint truth messengers as being non-lucid, mentally unstable, illogical, and so self-absorbed that they can't see things for what they really are. This is a very convenient way to quickly discard the truth and go on with one's life.

Furthermore, when people come upon new information such as this, they erroneously assume that they have some sort of intellectual high ground over it. They start with the assumption that their belief system is correct, and, for whatever reason, vehemently refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they may have actually been deceived all along by their belief system. And thus, when confronted with counter-evidence, they automatically reject it.

As a matter of fact, human beings are actually pompous enough to think that their status quo worldview is more rational than the truth. They neglect to factor the concept of intentional deception into their logical thought process, and thus fail to realize that the only reason why their worldview seems "rational" is because it is actually composed of a plethora of lies and distortions. So, in one of the greatest ironies ever, human beings think the lies that they are fed are reality, and that the truth, on the other hand, is crazy, unrealistic, and bizarre.

It is truly amazing how people are able to adopt one of Earth's belief systems (whether it be a specific religion or atheism), walk through the proverbial door of enlightenment (or so they think), shut the door behind them, and then never look back. Worse yet, they are actually proud not to look back--proud of their own stubbornness.

Once human beings are exposed to the truth, their decision to ridicule it manifests so quickly, one could mistakenly think that human beings are actually robots that were programmed to do so. Thus, if people really want to point the finger at someone who does not engage in serious critical thinking, they should go to the nearest mirror and point at themselves (rather than trying to point the finger at the truth messenger).

"There is far more to this world than taught in our schools, shown in the media, or proclaimed by the church and state. Most of mankind lives in a hypnotic trance, taking to be reality what is instead a twisted simulacrum of reality, a collective dream in which values are inverted, lies are taken as truth, and tyranny is accepted as security. They enjoy their ignorance and cling tightly to the misery that gives them identity"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9Gg7A-YEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9Gg7A-YEE



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vtDfEFmHkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vtDfEFmHkE



http://www.freedocumentaries.org/
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:38 pm

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:35 pm

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:42 pm

http://www.wimp.com/legoantikythera/





VIPR: America's new federal goon squad?
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-new ... goon-squad
After showing up at the Super Bowl, searching students going to their prom, arresting a man for a small amount of marijuana, deporting three teenagers at a trolley stop after apprehending them on their way to school, Wilson accuses the TSA-turned-VIPR with an ugly, ulterior motive: "This tells me the TSA's purpose is not to protect us from terrorism, but to be deployed as a national police force to enforce federal laws."
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:05 am

No longer just theories: The top 10 conspiracy facts of 2011
http://www.naturalnews.com/034501_consp ... _2011.html

#1 - Obama admits U.S. government used Guatemalan prisoners for illegal medical experiments
When we exposed the U.S. government's long list of medical crimes against humanity back in 2006, the mainstream media was silent (http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html). People insisted the government was ethical and honest, and it could never be involved in crimes against humanity. (ROFL!) When the truth came out about Guatemalan prisoner experiments, however, it went viral so quickly the mainstream media couldn't whitewash the story.

So now, the whole world knows the U.S. government and its National Institutes of Health (NIH) are medical criminals that murder innocent human beings in order to study new drugs for Big Pharma:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033483_G...


#2 - FDA caught using KGB-style infiltration and spying techniques to entrap raw milk distribution hub
It's legal to sell unpasteurized orange juice in America as long as you put a label on it, but selling unpasteurized milk earns you the "KGB treatment" from the FDA and the California Dept. of Agriculture, both of which have become criminal gangs running vindictive vengeance campaigns against target innocents. NaturalNews broke the story of how the FDA used spy cameras, secret infiltration techniques and other traps to gather evidence before raiding Rawesome Foods at gunpoint, then destroying $50,000+ in food in front of astonished witnesses.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033428_F...


#3 - Institute of Medicine's links with military industrial complex exposed by NaturalNews
In yet another investigative story that NaturalNews broke in 2011, we dug into the funding sources of the Institute of Medicine and discovered it receives enormous financial support from the Pentagon, military defense contractors and numerous globalist organizations that profit from war. No wonder the IOM promotes vaccines so aggressively -- it's a war against humanity, waged one syringe at a time. Read more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_I...


#4 - USDA caught running animal mass murder programs to kill birds and mammals
To the shock of many, the USDA was exposed this year for operating mass-murder programs that target animals such as birds, foxes, wild pigs and other creatures. This is primarily accomplished with mass poisoning chemicals that also end up killing other animals such as Bald Eagles.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031076_U...


#5 - Weather control technology confirmed and functional near Abu Dhabi
Mention "weather control technology" to your average fluoride head, and they think you're some kind of "wingnut" conspiracy theorist. Yet weather control technology is in full operation just outside Abu Dhabi, where a huge array of negative ion generators produce artificial rain storms that dump millions of gallons of fresh water on the desert landscape:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030998_w...


#6 - InfoWars releases hidden camera water fluoridation video
Let there be no doubt about how dangerous, corrosive and even deadly those toxic fluoride chemicals really are. Alex Jones and the InfoWars team grabbed undercover water fluoridation video in Austin, Texas, and posted it on the internet. What's admitted on the video should be shocking to everyone:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033753_w...


#7 - Documents prove Dr. Wakefield was innocent, BMJ conspired to discredit him
In a turn of events that has yet to be acknowledged by the mainstream media, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was proven innocent of the spurious charges leveled against him. Documents prove that he did not fabricate his research as was claimed by the medical journals and the mainstream media, including CNN. In fact, the accusation itself was the real criminal fabrication.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_D...

See this story to learn more (and watch the video):
http://www.naturalnews.com/031211_A...


#8 - USDA conspires with Monsanto to de-regulate GE alfalfa
There's nothing quite like GMOs to slow-kill an entire nation. You get increased infertility, organ toxicity and runaway environmental contamination, too. In 2011, the USDA went all out on attacking the world with GMOs, unleashing both GE alfalfa and GE corn on the U.S. public:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031139_G...

GE corn:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031359_G...


#9 - FDA admits factory-produced chicken meat contains arsenic
In 2011, the mainstream media went crazy reporting trace levels of arsenic in apple juice, but it never bothered to report on the much higher concentrations of arsenic found in chicken meat. Our NaturalNews story on arsenic found in chicken meat received a whopping 78,000 Facebook shares in 2011, making it one of our highest-shared stories of the year:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032659_a...


#10 - Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admits vaccines contain cancer-causing viruses
Dr. Maurice Hilleman's secret vaccine recording emerged in 2011, causing shockwaves of disbelief to spread across the internet as people heard this Merck scientist laughing it up with other scientists as they joked about all the people who would die from cancer tumors after taking vaccine shots. You can hear the recording yourself on NaturalNews.TV. Click this link for details:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D...



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034501_consp ... z1hqVe2AEE

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3641.story
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:52 pm

BOBT12 wrote:Or kill you? :(

Our Troops do NOT Protect Our Freedom and We Should Stop Thanking Them for Doing So.
This is a sad fact. The Troops are working for a group of kill-crazy-con-men (and women, think BroomHillery) that go by many names, such as, political elite (Barry Joker Obama), Banksters (Hank Paulson, Larry Summers, Helicopter Ben), NWO (Dirtbag Rockefeller, KissASSinger), etc. The bottom-line, is that this is change that we CAN'T BELIEVE IN, unless we want to join Gaddafi!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhvpaVSEEcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhvpaVSEEcQ


The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
by Jacob G. Hornberger
by Jacob G. Hornberger
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger64.html

How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.

Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.

Let's examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:

1. Foreign regimes

Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the foreseeable future.

After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be needed to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as the United States.

I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.

2. Terrorists

Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.

Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us from “the terrorists,” it is the troops themselves — or, more precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out — that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.

Think back to 1989 and the years following — when the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn't know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official enemy” was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America's “ally” that had “liberated” Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to keep it in existence?

The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. “We can be a big help in the war on drugs,” the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the U.S.-Mexican border. “We'll help American businesses compete in the world.” “We'll readjust NATO's mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.” “We'll protect us from an unsafe world.”

Then along came the Pentagon's old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave America's standing army a new raison d'être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.

Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraq's water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated — spreading deadly infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were “worth it.” Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis — that is, people whose worst “crime” was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.

All that death and destruction — both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 — have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces today.

Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president — that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for its “freedom and values.”

If the American people had dismantled the nation's standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.

Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target — the World Trade Center, first in 1993 and then again in 2001.

3. The federal government

As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government. That's in fact why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to protect us and our freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in America — they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and obedient citizenry at home.

Consider the words of James Madison:


A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Here's how Patrick Henry put it:


A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?

There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.

As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don't Support the Constitution,” in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.

What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president's orders, especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.

Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a “terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?

Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president's orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?

If the troops didn't protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?

I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst of a “crisis” or “emergency.”

And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.

Now it's true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?

Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”

Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?

The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president's orders. They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.”

Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.

The solution

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war against another nation — and that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power. President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn't need its approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief's position was that he did not need the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.

No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees — and that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power.

Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the president's orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to obey the president's orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a “terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.

There is one — and only one — solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon's enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.

“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be protected?”

Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred against our nation — anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.

What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much like invading Switzerland — like swallowing a porcupine. Don't forget that the men and women who currently serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn't disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by invasion by a foreign power.

We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America's enormous standing army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people's earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation stronger.

What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at least one nation that would accept them — the United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.

Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do so.

We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal government's military empire and overseas interventions. World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

One vision — the vision of militarism and empire — will bring America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision — the vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers — would put our nation back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7fETsKYkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7fETsKYkA
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:02 pm

The Real Problem with the National Defense Authorization Act
by Laurence M. Vance



For each of the past forty-eight years, Congress has passed the misnamed National Defense Authorization Act to set forth the budget of the Defense Department. President Obama just signed into law the latest version of the NDAA, but not without some controversy.

The House originally passed this 1145-page bill (H.R.1540) back on May 26 by a vote of 322-96. Only six Republicans voted against the bill (Justin Amash, John Campbell, Jason Chaffetz, John Duncan, Tom McClintock, & Ron Paul).

The 926-page Senate version of the bill (S.1867) was passed on December 1 by a vote of 93-7. Only three Republicans voted against the bill (Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, & Rand Paul). The Senate then incorporated the measure in a now 908-page H.R.1540 as an amendment.

The original House bill contained an affirmation in section 1034 that the president has "the authority to detain belligerents," until "the termination of hostilities," including persons who "(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A)."

But it is the Senate version that, as amended in two ways, raised such a firestorm of controversy.

Conservative, religious, and animal-rights groups were upset with a provision in the Senate bill seen as legalizing sodomy and bestiality in the military. The Senate bill simply says, buried in division A – DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS, title V – MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, subtitle E – Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally, section 551 – REFORM OF OFFENSES RELATING TO RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND OTHER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, (d) REPEAL OF SODOMY ARTICLE, that "Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed." This is a reference to title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 47, subchapter 10, section 925 of U.S. Code, which states:


(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.

Section 125 of the UCMJ adds this explanation:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

The Senate bill also directed that the two other mentions of sodomy in U.S. Code title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 47, subchapter 8, section 843, and subchapter 10, section 918, be excised.

Civil libertarians of all stripes were upset with a provision in the Senate bill that would codify the power of the president to use the military to indefinitely intern anyone, without charges or trial, anywhere in the world – including American citizens on U.S. soil.

The most worrisome sections of the bill are found in division A, title X, subtitle D, sections 1031 and 1032. I give here the sections in their entirety because we will return to them later.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL. – Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS. – A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. – The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION. – Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS. – The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. –

(1) IN GENERAL. – Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS. – The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined –

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. – For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. 9

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. – The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. –

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. – The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES. –

(1) IN GENERAL. – Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS. – The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.


(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE. – This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have all publicly opposed the bill. All three wrote letters to Congress on the matter. Mueller wrote that the "presumption of military detention" would "inhibit our ability to convince arrestees to cooperate." Panetta warned that the bill "imposes a whole new restraint on the flexibility we need to pursue our counterterrorism efforts." A group of twenty-six retired generals and admirals wrote to senators that the new provisions in the NDAA would "do more harm than good."

Thirty-two Democratic members of Congress sent their own letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders in protest of these provisions, saying:

The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military.

One signer of the letter, Rep. Martin Heinrich, stated: "These provisions are deeply concerning and would risk putting American citizens in military detention, indefinitely. In short, this authority is at complete odds with the United States Constitution."

The ACLU urged the president to veto the bill. The New York Times editorialized against the bill.

A contributor to Forbes maintained that the NDAA is "the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face."

Republican representative Justin Amash termed the bill "one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation in our lifetime."


Republican senator Rand Paul said: "If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game."

Paul, as mentioned, was one of only three Republican senators to vote against the bill. The other warmongering, police statist Senate Republicans are typified by Lindsey Graham, who stated: "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’"

The version of the NDAA just signed into law by President Obama is a result of a conference committee between the House and the Senate to work out a compromise on their version of H.R.1540. The House passed the final measure on December 14 by a vote of 283-136. The Republican vote was 190-43. The Senate approved the final measure on December 15 by a vote of 86-13. But this time Republican senators Coburn, Lee, and Paul were joined by senators Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, and James Risch.

So, what became of the sodomy and indefinite detention provisions?

The Senate attempt to strip the sodomy language out of the UCMJ was turned back by the House. According to the conference report (H.REPT. 112–329):

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 551) that would amend section 920 of title 10, United States Code (Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to separate Article 120, UCMJ, into three separate articles applying to the offenses of rape and sexual assault, sexual offenses against children; and other non-consensual sexual misconduct offenses. The provision would also repeal section 125 of title 10, United States Code (Article 125 of the UCMJ), the offense of sodomy. The House bill contained no similar provision. The House recedes with an amendment that would delete the repeal of section 125 of title 10, United States Code (Article 125 of the UCMJ).

But regarding the dangerous provisions in sections 1031 and 1032, the Senate bill won out.

According to the conference report:

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1034) that would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.


The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1031) that would affirm the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain certain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40). The provision would not affect 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.

The House recedes.

The original language in S.1867 is thus retained verbatim in the new version of the NDAA.

And regarding section 1032, the conference report says:

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1032) that would require military

custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40), subject to a national security waiver. Under the provision, the President would have broad authority to issue implementation procedures, including but not limited to deciding who makes a determination of coverage, how the determination is made, and when it is made.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment providing that nothing in this provision shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody. The law enforcement and national security tools that would not be affected in any way by this provision include, but would not be limited to, Grand Jury subpoenas, national security letters, and actions pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Public Law 95–511). The amendment would also authorize the President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, to waive the requirements of the provision.

The conferees note that while section 1021 of this bill would apply to "al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," this section would apply to "al Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al Qaeda." The conferees agree that while the Taliban is covered by section 1021, it is not covered by this section.

(It should be noted that the original sections 1031 and 1032 are numbered 1021 and 1022 in the new bill.)

So, the main thing that is different about the new version of the NDAA is the insertion of the following paragraph between "Implementation Procedures" and "Effective Date"

(d) AUTHORITIES. – Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

There are only two other changes. Under (a)(4) "Waiver for National Security," instead of the secretary of defense submitting a wavier to Congress it is the president. And under (c)(2)(C), there is an inconsequential change in wording. An "interrogation session" is now called just an "interrogation."

I rarely agree with Democratic members of the House of Representatives, but Rep. Alcee Hastings from my state of Florida, during debate in the House over the conference report, gets it right it:

This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a "terrorist" in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what constitutes "substantial support" and "associated forces" of al Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism.

While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on mere suspicions.

We won’t defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers.

Likewise, here are the comments of consistent war opponent Rep. Dennis Kucinich:

Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the President unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress.

This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the State.

In his article, "Three Myths about the Detention Bill," civil libertarian par excellence Glenn Greenwald concludes:

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled – that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected – and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detention even U.S. citizens without a trial.

But as correct and necessary as they are, the objections of civil libertarians regarding the indefinite detention of American citizens that the NDAA codifies, are not the real problem with the bill. Much more insidious is the bill itself and the $669 billion it allocates for "defense" spending.

In the "Constitutional Authority Statement" that accompanies H.R.1540, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon (R-CA), has the audacity to say:

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:

The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is the power of Congress to "provide for the common defense," "raise and support armies," and "provide and maintain a navy," as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

The U.S. military is used to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN resolutions, launch preemptive strikes, nation build, spread goodwill, change regimes, eradicate drugs, rebuild infrastructure, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, establish schools, train foreign armies, invade foreign countries, occupy foreign countries, spread democracy, kill tens of thousands of people that were no threat to the United States, and secure the borders, guard the shores, patrol the coasts, enforce no-fly zones in the skies, and otherwise defend other countries.

I doubt that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned any of these things when they said: "provide for the common defense," "raise and support armies," and "provide and maintain a navy." The purpose of the military has been perverted beyond all recognition. Because the military spends more for offense than defense, that the defense budget is actually for defense is clearly a myth.

Another myth is that defense spending keeps us safe. The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It maintains an empire of over 1,000 foreign military bases and hundreds of thousands of troops in 150 countries and territories around the globe. The United States is the policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter of the world. It has "entangling alliances" with many countries that require it to go to war and expend blood and treasure in defense of other nations. But as Congressman Ron Paul, speaking recently on Face the Nation, maintained: "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it’s a danger to national defense, and we can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."

Yet another myth about the defense budget is that it is the only thing spent on defense. As economic historian Robert Higgs has shown, real defense spending is actually about $1 trillion.

Still another myth is that the defense budget includes spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is a list of U.S. spending on these foreign wars through fiscal year 2010 that was in addition to the defense budget:

FY2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, P.L. 107-38 9/18/01, $13.9 billion
FY2002 Department of Defense and Emergency Terrorism Response Act, P.L. 107-117, 1/10/02, $3.4 billion
FY2002 Emergency Supplemental, P.L. 107-206, 8/2/02, $14.1 billion
FY2002 Regular Foreign Operations, P.L. 107-115, 1/10/02, $0.2 billion
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations, P.L. 108-7, 2/20/03, $10.4 billion
FY2003 Emergency Supplemental, P.L. 108-11, 4/16/03, $66.0 billion
FY2003 DOD Appropriations, P.L. 107-248, 10/23/02, $7.1 billion
FY2004 Emergency Supplemental, P.L. 108-106, 11/6/03, $86.1 billion
FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, P.L. 108-199, 1/23/04, $0.5 billion
FY2005 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-287, 8/5/04, $27.8 billion
FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations, P.L. 108-447, 12/8/04, $1.0 billion
FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 109-13, 5/11/05, $79.0 billion
FY2006 Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations, P.L. 109-54, 8/2/05, $0.2 billion
FY2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations, P.L. 109-102, 11/14/05, 1.0 billion
FY2006 Science, State, & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-108, 11/22/05, $0.1 billion
FY2006 Military Quality of Life & Veterans Affairs, P.L. 109-114 11/30/05, $0.4 billion
FY2006 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-148 12/30/05, $50.8 billion
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental, P.L. 109-234 6/15/06, $69.2
FY2007 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-289 9/29/06, $70.5 billion
FY2007 Continuing Resolution, P.L. 110-5, 2/15/07, $1.8 billion
FY2007 Supplemental, P.L. 110-28, 5/25/07, $98.7 billion
FY2008 Continuing Resolution, P.L. 110-92 9/29/07, $5.2 billion
FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-116, 11/13/07, $11.6 billion
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161, 12/26/07, $73.2 billion
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-252, 6/30/08, $163.2 billion
FY2009 Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-329, 9/30/08, $4.0 billion
FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-8, 3/11/09, $1.1 billion
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-32, 6/24/09, $82.5 billion
FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-117, 12/16/09, $8.2 billion
FY2010 DOD Appropriations Act, Title IX, P.L. 111-118, 12/19/09, $127.3 billion
FY2010 Supplemental, P.L. 111-212, 7/27/10, $34.2 billion

The most insidious myth about the defense budget is that it is tool of congressmen to enhance their chances for reelection while lining the pockets of defense contractors. In his book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, retired U.S. Army colonel Andrew Bacevich explains:

Each year the Pentagon expends hundreds of billions of dollars to raise and support U.S. military forces. This money lubricates American politics, filling campaign coffers and providing a source of largesse – jobs and contracts – for distribution to constituents. It provides lucrative "second careers" for retired U.S. military officers hired by weapons manufacturers or by consulting firms appropriately known as "Beltway Bandits" (p. 228).

Two of Old Right journalist John T. Flynn’s eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist State are:

Militarism is a mainstay of government spending
Military spending has imperialist aims
The U.S. economic system is not based on free market capitalism; it is based on that most insidious form of crony capitalism known as military fascism.

The NDAA, sans indefinite detention, or in whatever form it is found, is a bill for continued militarism, imperialism, and empire, and a terrible waste of the taxpayers’ money.

January 2, 2012


http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance273.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCM14jNOYcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCM14jNOYcQ
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

Re: wtf

Postby lostandfound » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:20 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1LWWVKf26E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1LWWVKf26E



The Anti-Federalists Were Right
by Laurence M. Vance




"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

~ James Madison, Federalist No. 45

History has shown this statement to be either wishful thinking or a deliberate falsehood. Regardless of which opinion you hold, the Anti-Federalists were right. They correctly predicted the unlimited power of a consolidated government under the Constitution. Not only were the Anti-Federalists right to a degree that they could never have imagined; I seriously doubt that the Federalists could have envisioned or would have approved of their new government becoming the monstrosity that it now is.

The U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Nine states were needed to ratify the new Constitution. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state, and the Confederation Congress began making plans for the transition to government under the Constitution. Virginia ratified the document on June 25, 1788, and New York followed on July 26, 1788. On March 4, 1789 — 218 years ago yesterday — the new Constitution took effect, replacing the Articles of Confederation that had been in force since 1781. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until November 21, 1789, and Rhode Island not until May 29, 1790.

Although the arguments of the Anti-Federalists against the new Constitution were numerous and varied, there is one thing that underlies them all: The danger to liberty from a strong central government.

The term Anti-Federalists is a misnomer. A federal government is a decentralized government. Yet, those who called themselves Federalists wanted a stronger central government. Writing in the (Baltimore) Maryland Gazette in 1788, an Anti-Federalist who called himself "A Farmer" clearly recognized this abuse of language:

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together . . . this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

The question is a simple one, as stated by the Anti-Federalist "Brutus" in his first essay in the New York Journal in 1787:

The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only? This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.

To put it briefly, the Anti-Federalists concluded that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal government.

"Cato" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the New York Journal between September 1787 and January 1788. This is from his third letter:

The recital, or premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the form of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth. — But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity.

"Centinel" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. Here are selections from his eleventh, twelfth, and sixteenth letters:

If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting the new constitution, it would be infinitely better to incur it; for even then there would be at least the change of a good government rising out of licentiousness.

That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complication and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any single tyrant.

The new constitution instead of being the panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocates will be found upon examination like Pandora's box, replete with every evil.

The "Federal Farmer" wrote for the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in 1787. His letters were soon afterward published in pamphlet form. This is from his first letter:

The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. . . . Whether such a change can ever be effected, in any manner; whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars; whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country — time only can determine.

Like those of Centinel, the essays of an "Old Whig" appeared in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. This is from his second essay:

The new constitution vests Congress with such unlimited powers as ought never to be entrusted to any men or body of men.

The essays of an unknown Anti-Federalist who used the name of "John DeWitt" were published in the Boston American Herald in late 1787. This is from his third essay:

Upon an attentive examination you can pronounce it nothing less, than a government which in a few years, will degenerate to a compleat Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government upon the Continent. In short, my fellow-citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people.

The "Impartial Examiner" wrote essays for the Virginia Independent Chronicle in 1788. This is from his first essay:

But surely, when this doctrine comes to be applied to the proposed federal constitution, which is framed with such large and extensive powers, as to transfer the individual sovereignty from each state to the aggregate body, — a constitution, which delegates to Congress an authority to interfere with, and restrain the legislatures of every state — invests them with supreme powers of legislation throughout all the states — annihilates the separate independency of each; and, in short — swallows up and involves in the plenitude of its jurisdiction all other powers whatsoever: — I shall not be taxed with arrogance in declaring such an argument to be fallacious.

Patrick Henry (1736—1799) made several speeches against adopting the Constitution in the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. This is from his speech of June 5:

Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case?

This is from his speech of June 9:

A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.

And then there is the aforementioned Brutus; once again, from his first essay:

It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated.

Those in the Pennsylvania ratification convention who objected to the proposed Constitution published The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. Here are four pertinent selections:

The powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron banded despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.

The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states.

The legislative power vested in Congress by the foregoing recited sections, is so unlimited in its nature; may be so comprehensive and boundless its exercise, that this alone would be amply sufficient to annihilate the state governments, and swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire.

The powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one government, which even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done without the sacrifice of all liberty.

The Anti-federalists were right. We don't need to return to the government of the Framers of the Constitution, we need to return to the government that the Framers destroyed. And furthermore, Constitution or no Constitution: The centralization of power is always a great evil.

All quotations from the Anti-federalists are taken from Regnery edition of The Anti-Federalists: Selected Writings and Speeches, edited by Bruce Frohnen.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance10
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
lostandfound
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 185 time
Have thanks: 144 time

PreviousNext

Return to Videos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred