The Second Amendment is Dead, Long Live the Right to Bear Arms

2nd-amendment-gun-matby Bill Buppert

45 human beings legally disarmed the state of New York under the leadership of the Governor Cuomo.  A state with a population of 19 million people has been disarmed in a significant fashion for those foolish or sheepish enough to comply with the law.  The country is bombarded with media propaganda on a continuous basis on the moral high ground and fairness of democratic processes. In one fell swoop, the rulers of the tax jurisdiction of New York have proven not only the folly and charade that is representative democracy but abridged the most fundamental right of all – the right to self-defense.  Ironically, the legislators had accidentally disarmed the only ones who should be subject to total disarmament in the prosecution of their duties – the police.  This was quickly remedied by the worthies in Albany and all is well with the continuing weaponization of the police.

As I have mentioned before, absent the police, no political bad actor in history has any power to deny rights or exploit tyrannical rule. None. This would be a reason why the politicos would behave in a most uncharacteristically efficient manner to correct that oversight. Now the governor and his entourage will continue to have heavily armed private praetorians at their beck and call to provide security much like the Private Security Detachments (PSD) that protect VIPs and general officers overseas and in the combat zones in America’s neo-imperialist quagmires around the globe.

As with so much in government, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the mundanes that dot the fruited plain and have their wealth and resources filched at gunpoint on a perennial basis.

Not only is there a tremendous government animus toward any aspect of self-reliance as I discussed earlier but there is a very real fear of the general population having a peer competitive capability to defend themselves at the same level of a government’s military offensive capability. I will leave it to others to drone on endlessly about the Constitutional Second Amendment and its mystical and sanctified capability to keep Americans in arms.  The evidence would prove otherwise with the endless parade of legislation and laws that have effectively removed modern military analogs such as fully automatic firearms and crew served weapons and suppressors and grenades and mortars and the list is endless on what you cannot legally possess without going through a government probe search that would make the NKVD blush in admiration.  Most of these items are simply prohibited.

I believe the “20,000 gun laws” is a canard and that 300 may be nearer the number according to the Brookings Institution: All 300 or whatever the true number may be certainly infringe in a substantive and material way on the ability of the common folk to maintain a peer armory and capability against their oppressors.

The most informative answer to the question of “how many gun-control laws?” is then “about 300 major state and federal laws, and an unknown but shrinking number of local laws.”

In my state of Arizona, the local laws are shrinking due to state preemption and the heroic efforts of the Arizona Civilian Defense League.  Since the systematic disarmament of blacks toward the end of the nineteenth century and the raft of weapons prohibition legislation since 1934 to include Ronald Reagan using the black possession of firearms a causus belli in 1967 to get the 1968 Gun Control Act rolling, the government assault on individual possession has not ceased.

The Second Amendment of the vaunted but toothless Bill of Rights has been ravaged, savaged and rendered to the point of being a nice slogan and perfect bunting for a rally but effectively an empty promise and a worse protector of individual arming.

One can get all the quaint quotes from the Founding Era and make all the legalistic arguments one wants but you find yourself in the same pathetic position of the wacky and deluded Sovereign Citizens adherents trying to outwit the robed government employees with their rapier wit and deep Blackstonian understanding of the law. Not.

The Second Amendment will do nothing to stop gun prohibition in America.  The Constitution was built to create a system first and foremost that fleeces and relieves citizens from their wealth and will concomitantly disarm its citizens if the objections to the former become too disturbing to the rulers.

Those who think another case in front of the Supremes will seal the deal and sanctify their individual rights to bear arms are in for a rude surprise.  Remember Scalia’s infamous words in the Heller decision reserving the right of rulers to remove “dangerous and unusual weapons” from the ruled class.  It was a curious and ambiguous drawing from the US v. Miller decision concerning the employment of a militia weapon (in this case, a trench style shotgun).  As we have seen from so many decisions, the Supremes will find a way to twist the language to suit their propensity for restricting rights instead of expanding them.

Much like the recent decisions on police surveillance, the government rule-enforcers will simply find other means or suborn the law.  It is what they do.

I am suggesting that a sole reliance on the Second Amendment will never fail to disappoint if decriminalization of weapons is not the first and only effort.  Much like the illegal mood enhancers chased by the Drug War, the worst thing that can happen is legalization because then the Forces of Darkness can regulate and tax to their heart’s content. Decriminalization of weapons and self-defense is the only course of action.

I would like to briefly address the “need argument” so popular with the disarmament talking heads in the government and media.  The common canard is that a free people must establish some kind of need and until such time as permission is given by the rulers, this is forbidden. Why do I need a Kalashnikov or grenade or fully automatic firearm?

The answer is deceptively simple: any population in any tax jurisdiction on Earth should be a peer competitor in weapons and training to the standing military and constabulary within those boundaries for a very simple reason; no government on Earth has ever remained within the confines of its creation and none has ever disarmed its population without severe penalties to individual rights and freedoms.  At one end of the spectrum, the Communist nations used it as a means for wholesale pogroms against the disarmed citizens and at the other end have guaranteed a hazard-free workplace for those who break laws for a living (the private sector criminal element) leading the ironic position of the vaunted United Kingdom being the most violent nation in Europe.

When politicians ask after the mere needs of a citizen, there will always be an agenda designed to deprive the populace of their loot or their liberty.  After all, it is a favored tactic of the collectivists to satisfy their constituents in the Free Shit Army by rhetorically asking why the wealth should not open their wallets wider and be dragooned into surrendering more of their private earnings for the herd.

Why do we need cars that exceed the speed limit?  Why do we need to have 120” LCD televisions?  Why do we need to have ball bats, hammers and pipe wrenches if they are so harmful?

Some of the worthies and talking heads in the media and blogosphere spend countless hours wringing their hands over the baleful effects of firearms yet they ignore the far greater death toll at the hands of government approved doctors or the government subsidized hell-holes in the inner city where the ruler’s policies have created perverse family structures and the inevitable obesity epidemic that result from following the government diet program.  Whatever government touches, it blackens, deadens, and deepens the crisis it raced to resolve.

Draw a line in the sand and just say no to disarmament.

Source

Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

Impeach-Obama-CrimesFor sedition against the Constitution

Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

There can no longer be any doubt – the forces of tyranny are running wild across our once great Republic. The time has come for all good men and women to rally to the aid of their country. We have now entered a historic crossroads that will decide the destiny of the United States. Arrogance and corruption has long festered in Washington DC, but the last decade has seen an extreme acceleration of criminal looting and attacks on liberty – every freedom is under sustained assault.

We the People, the rightful masters of this Republic, will either rise up through Congress and the states or we can trade in our birthright of liberty for the chains of a technocratic slavery. Below we list some of the more egregious acts of seditious treason against the Republic of the United States. Anyone who wishes to continue to live in a free country and to pass that birthright on to their children must research this document and then lobby state legislatures and the Congress to do their duty and remove the would-be dictator.

The time has now come for a bill of impeachment to be introduced and debated in Congress. Obama’s crimes are public, and the debate in the House will serve as a court in which to display the tyrannical activities of President Obama and his cohorts. As in the case of Richard Nixon, the exposure of Obama’s crimes may cause him to resign in disgrace. If he does not step down, the full House will then vote to begin the impeachment trial in the US Senate. The time has now come to make your decision – to stand up to evil or get on your knees as a willing slave.

Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama – Filed by Citizen Alexander Emric Jones, January 15, 2013.

- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.

Below, Congressman Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up against Obama right beside him, will you?

“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

- He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.

- He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.

- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.

- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.

- He has flagrantly violated article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution by accepting rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council. The clause states, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.

- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.

- He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed out preferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.

- He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.

- He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.

- He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas.

For these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.

Impeachment Clauses in the Constitution

Source

Codex Alimentarius: UN Food Securitization Scheme

WW~Notes: My apologies for the lack of blog posts; I’ve been sick with sinus problems, then I suffered a Grand Mal seizure last week which was a reaction to medication I take daily.  I’m trying to get back on track and there is a considerable amount of information to plow through.  So, please bear with me.

By Susanne Posel, BLN Contributing Writer

In 2008, using the toxic industrial chemical melamine in liquid infant formula, 6 babies died while more than 303,000 became deathly ill from exposure in China. At the time, the UN Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) had allowed for the maximum limit of 1 milligram per kilogram of formula. Now the CAC has revised that maximum to 0.15 millgrams per kilogram of formula.

Melamine is a dangerous chemical used in the manufacturing of dishes and kitchen cooking-ware. The Chinese used the chemical in a watered-down solution in infant formula under the guise that it tested positive for protein enrichment. However, using a man-made chemical in consumptive sources does not make sense when nutritional value is a concern.

Chinese rice and wheat gluten also contain melamine and was found in concentrations of dangerous levels when pet food exported from the region was tested in 2007. The cats and dogs that ate the food died from kidney failure, says WHO.

Reports have also concluded that melamine has caused the development of kidney stones and other kidney damage in adults.

The CAC is a UN intergovernmental body made up of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), 170 international governmental representatives ; including the European Commission. Under the CAC, the UN seeks to take over food prices internationally by controlling food trade and reforming consumer health.

They oversee international food standards and make sure that government implement them with the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Right now, in Rome, Italy, the CAC are having their 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. On their agenda is the Draft Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019 where the CAC are developing a “science-based and globally applicable international standards for food and promote use of these standards by countries.”

At the meeting, the CAC decided on maximum uses of the toxic chemical ractopamine, an MRLs, which enhances the leanness of livestock meat. Separate permits for beef and pork will be established to “take down any trade barriers caused by an improper ban on the use of ractopamine,” according to US representatives.

Imported beef into the US contains residue of ractopamine.

The CAC is priming themselves to be the “effective, inclusive, and trusted global leader in setting food standards” where they will have complete control over “food safety, quality, and food trade”. In conjunction with WHO and the FAO, the CAC will have exclusive oversight “to track progress toward [the] accomplishment of the goals” of the UN to securitize food globally.

Between 2014 – 2019 the Strategic Plan of the CAC is intended to be fully implemented by international mandate “to meet the needs” of their stakeholders and members. The specifics of the Strategic Plan, adopted by resolution by WHO will be enforced by the UN agency. FAO will be tasked with “[improving] quality and safety for food at all stage of the food chain.”

CAC believes that with population growth, climate change and “the growing demand for food” four strategic goals must be implemented with the global vision reflected by:

• UN standards on food
• Based on science
• Demanded participation of the international community

The CAC exclusively bases their food standards on scientific developments to protect public health and the global food trade. By exchanging financial support from member states for scientific research and development to ensure that food be created for the consumption of developing nations.

In these developing countries, the CAC demands participation by financial blackmail with monies from the Codex Trust Fund. They promote governmental allowance of UN programs and structures in line with sustainable national funding by the UN.

Earlier this year, President Obama announced that Codex Alimentarius would be the foundation of his new initiative to merge the pharmaceutical corporations and the US government to identify new uses for drugs that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It was admitted that:

  • There may be need for new human trials, putting the general public at a health risk
  • Genetic engineering will be used to discover exclusive pharmaceutical needs for all new and old diseases
  • Vitamin supplement industry will be systematically phased out

Obama’s executive order Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council in 2010 which empowered the CAC to enact their international food standards in the US.

The US Senate gave their approval of this UN takeover of our food, vitamins and medicinal substances with the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, S. 3187. This allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to charge “user fees” to drug corporations to create what they call “safety and efficiency reviews”. After the pharmaceutical companies quietly buy their FDA approved reviews, their drugs are given the green light and introduced into the general public. This financial relationship with the US government and the drug corporations, in conjunction with the UN, is a deception that will lead to declines in health and well-being of the general public.

But, remember, this is what this scheme was designed to do. The global Elite want 90% of the world’s population dead because a small group is easier to control.

Source

The Duty of the Military in a Militarized Empire

nationalstanddown.jpg

Those who serve in the military are in a difficult position. The oath taken by enlistees states, “I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” The internal conflict between supporting and defending the Constitution and obeying orders is at the heart of the dilemma of honor and duty. Those who accept that the Presidential chain of command is by nature constitutional; lack a proper understanding of history and professes an even greater ignorance of current affairs.

Ever since Congress abrogated their lawful war power authority to declare war, the military industrial complex has embarked on a path of global empire. The consequences of such un-American internationalist imperialism have turned the country into a hollow shell of a once great nation. NeoCons and their liberal cousin counterparts champion perpetual interventionism and continuous oversea deployment, deny this stark reality.

False flag operations used as incessant excuses to expand the permanent war machine, demean and ultimately will destroy the moral purpose of our country. Propaganda and disinformation used to spread the jingoism fever infects the body politics. Those who remember the disgusting treatment, upon the separation from service, of Viet Nam draftees welcome the positive homage of recent military personnel.

However, there is an attitude that challenges all the flag waving and medal awards. Gary D. Barnett presents a viewpoint that is not shared by most military brass. Mr. Barnett writes in Thank You for Your Service? No Thanks!

“What service is actually being praised by those conditioned to say these empty words? Why are they thanking and praising nearly every soldier they see?

Is it because hatred of the U.S. is increasing, and new enemies are being created in the Middle East and all around the rest of the world?

Is it because thousands and thousands of innocent people are being killed now in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and many more are being threatened?

Is it because 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 foreigners, mostly innocent civilians, have died just since World War II due to U.S. interference and war?

Is it because indefinite detention without due process, torture, assassination, and rendition are now common and accepted practices?

Is it because suicide rates among American soldiers have increased 80% since the Iraq War began?

Is it because mental problems now send more military personnel to the hospital than any other cause?

Is it because destruction and separation of military families is rampant?

Is it because civil liberties have all but disappeared due to so-called terrorism legislation? (terror legislation would be more accurate)

Is it because of the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?

Is it because of the massive buildup of killer drones abroad and at home?

Is it because the huge deficit spending to support multiple aggressive wars is causing economic chaos?

Is it because of the surging number of double amputees of American soldiers?

Is it because of increasing energy costs due to the United States unwarranted presence in the Middle East region?

Is it because the domestic police have now become a brutal militarized force, bent on controlling the entire population?”

This perspective fundamentally challenges the underlying foreign policy that structures military expenditures to project superpower force at the expense of actual domestic defense. As long as the National Security Council and the State Department pursues the policeman of the world policy, the military will be asked to implement unnecessary austerities that perpetuates the corrupt “world community” dominated by a financial tyranny. No wonder, that the blowback against our real interests is the only sure response that comes from such foreign adventures.

Full Spectrum Dominance is no substitute for true national security.

“The war on terror is an excuse to divert attention from the accelerated loss of rights and freedoms. Each step may seem insignificance and subtle, but the direction is always undeniable. Fear from any foreign threat seldom extends to the measures instituted by the domestic authority. Willingness to forget that legitimacy for your government is based upon your consent is epidemic. People are eager to demonstrate their devotion to the State, as they surrender their birthright as if it meant nothing.”

The source of the scourge that underpins obeying unlawful orders stems from a false obedience. Criminal civilian commands are not legitimate authority. The unconstitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act is clear. Brian J. Trautman, a military veteran writes on the NDAA,

“This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.”

Nothing new about laws or executive orders that strip constitutional protections, so what can an honest American serving in the military services do in response to their duty? Stewart Rhodes, founder of OathKeepers talks about the NDAA and provides the answer in the video Organizing a Military Stand Down Against NDAA. PFC Bradley Manning comes to mind when an active service personnel reveals the sins and dictates of the foreign policy elites. Kim Zetter reports in Wired,

“Manning is charged with 22 violations of military law for allegedly stealing records and transmitting defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, among other charges, which could get him up to life in prison if he’s convicted. In chat logs, Manning said he leaked the cables because he felt that the world needed to be aware of military activities that he believed were potentially illegal.”

The Bradley Manning media coverage is an essential blackout of the extent that the foreign policy psychopaths, that provides the orders for the military establishment is the cause of the anguish and death that responsible soldiers endure.

The officer corps ultimately bears the heaviest burden for enforcing illegal orders. The basic principle that honorable duty resides in the protection of the nation, should be accepted. However, the practical application falls dramatically short, when the military substitute the office of the Presidency as the essence of the nation. Willingness to follow the commands of a dictator directly leads to the Gary D. Barnett assessment.

Where is the line that needs to be drawn that neutralizes the treason that routinely comes out of the corridors of power? The Pentagon is comprised of careerists that all too often are willing to sacrifice the safety of the American public for their own advancement. War games never take into account that the immediate enemies of our country hold office, administer imperium policies and work for the financial oligarchy.

The globalists are more than plutocrats they are the ultimate and true enemy. The critical duty that military resides in a commitment to a genuine America First foreign policy. The Commander and Chief, no matter who occupies the Oval Office, is a mere selected puppet that is on a short leash.

The military needs to refuse unlawful orders by standing down and stand up for a constitutional republic.

SARTRE – April 22, 2012

Psychology of Tyranny for a Philosophy of Despotism

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

tsa-tyranny.jpg

The underpinnings that fallaciously attempt to justify despotic regimes rely upon the perverted practice of controlling the public mindset in weak societies. The indisputable evidence that civilization is regressing at lightning speed is all us. Governments are becoming irrelevant with the passage of illegitimate authority consolidating into the hands of oligarchic cabals and global tyrants. An objective study of the voluntary abandonment of individual sovereignty is worthy of an entire scholarly discipline. However, before confused citizens seek psychoanalysis on a couch of technocrat design, the basic principles of a classical education should be applied.

Philosophical inquiry is meant to seek an understanding of the truth. Truth, when known, vindicates the dignity of the person and the value intrinsic within the human race. Therefore, it comes as a great letdown to face up to the horrendous savageness that society accepts as typical behavior. The Psychological techniques used to train people to accept tyranny as the normal course of conduct is practiced by every despotic regime.

Jon Roland in an essay, Principles of Tyranny provides a valuable insight.

“Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy.

 

The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of “father” to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent “children” of such persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized.

 

This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decision-making of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.

 

In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an “authoritarian personality disorder”. In common parlance, as being a “control freak”.

Mr. Roland identifies the following traits associated with a tyrannical regime.

Control of public information and opinion Use of the law for competition suppression
Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers Creation of a class of officials who are above the law
Undue official influence on trials and juries Subversion of internal checks and balances
Usurpation of undelegated powers Conversion of rights into privileges
Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them
Militarization of law enforcement Political correctness
Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform Increasing dependency of the people on government
Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers Use of staged events to produce popular support

The consequences that follow disturb psychological attributes often reflected in an Hobbism view of government. Thomas Hobbes, believed that ‘order’ and effective law enforcement were the primary conditions for human survival (‘In the state of nature … no society’) Hobbes viewed human beings as essentially selfish and thought that democracy could easily degenerate into chaos, poor government and eventually civil war. The kind of governments that would have been approved by Hobbes would include benevolent dictators and enlightened despots and monarchies.For those who accept this position as a foundation of a pseudo vindication for authoritarian rule, Enlightened Despotism becomes the norm. The masses learn to accept the vicious obvious as the inevitable surrender to the profane. The propaganda used to indoctrinate the public that acceptance of progressive thought as preferable to classic principles of human dignity has a long history.

Going back to the era where kings and queens, needed an argument to convince the populace that their authority was justified, the reliance upon psychological distortion was common.

Enlightened Absolutism or Enlightened Despotism as it is more often called can be defined as a form of government strongly influenced by the wide propagation of ideas and the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. It is a term first used by the Philosophes in the second half of the 18th century that manifested to describe a particular phase in the development of absolutism. The term ‘Enlightened Despot’ refers to those 18th century monarchs who were familiar with the ideas of the Enlightenment and distinguished themselves from regular despots by the way they governed.”Today the same attempts to deceive are employed with all the sophistication that modern technology can develop. The best example of the current cult of mind control and historic distortion is found in the Neo-Conservatism that has hijacked the Republican Party.

Norman D. Livergood uses a contemporary NeoCon example to illustrate the anti-intellectual disconnect use to justify despotic rule.

“Leo Strauss is the “Fascist Godfather of the neoconservatives.” His neocon disciples believe that an elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the credulous American population. The primary goal of Strauss and his disciples is to turn back the clock of history to before the Enlightenment, when ancient tyrannies ruled without restraint.

 

A Leo Strauss could only become a professor of philosophy in a demented age in which people in general and scholars in particular could not see through his nonsense. Strauss, for example, claimed to have “discovered” a Plato without a doctrine of ideas or immortality of the soul, a Plato without metaphysics.”

Much of the media’s distorted worldview is essentially a philistine portrayal of an absurd account of events. The significance of their misinformation embeds a disinformation culture with even more advanced distortions. Without a sincere commitment to follow the search for truth and act upon valid conclusions, from the evidence uncovered, no country can exist as a free nation.

America has fallen into a deep and extensive delusional state of mind since 911. The Tyrannical trait that Mr. Roland lists expanded and intensified in the last decade. The pathetic justification used and repeated to sell despotism is that the “War on Terror” requires a suspension of constitutional protections. Such obscene rhetoric should be abhorrent to any rational and moral citizen. Yet, the absence of objective inquiry only leads to the inevitability of despotic tyranny.

Forgo the politics of 911 if you must, but listen and examine the conclusions of Christopher Rudy and ask yourself why facts no longer matter to so many people.

“The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way, as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don’t wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage to challenge a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist. Cherished illusions supersede hard reality.

 

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the U.S. Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the U.S. Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently. But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government’s lies and deceptions.”

At play in this. Mr. Rudy’s analysis is an implicit acknowledgement of the regretful mind control used to exert the psychological tyranny that is so easily accepted, when the majority believes in a philosophy of despotism. This illogical philosophy adopts the state worship of the NeoCon War Party. Ignored or rejected is the remarkable basis and essential nature upon which lead to the creation of this country.

Refusal to question or exhibiting the timidity by sitting on their hands, after knowing the ridiculousness of official accounts of government benevolence, rejects the entire heritage of philosophical inquiry. Hobbes view of human nature seems accurate. However, his alternative for the State provides false cover for the despots that thrive on their desire for psychological manipulation of citizens for the benefit of their tyrannical fellow travelers.

The sickness that engulfs society today is a direct result of abandoning the search for truth. Tyranny can be defeated, but it will take courage to break away from the psychopathic distortions and lies. It will take brave souls to confront the normal pattern of despotism. This objective bears the ultimate fruits from living a life of philosophical integrity.

SARTRE – January 22, 2012

“The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.”

Aristotle

Source

NDAA – Why The Executive May Not Violate The Constitution & Remain in Office

IT IS NOT JUST A PIECE OF PAPER

When King James I accused Sir Edward Coke (pronounced “Cook”) (1 February 1552 – 3 September 1634), of treason for suggesting that his (James’s) sovereign power might be under (below) the law, Chief Justice Coke replied: “Thus wrote Bracton: the king is under no man but God and the law”.

As Lord Denning points out, this saying has “reverberated down the centuries” to make judges the guardians of the constitution, (What Next in the Law, pp. 311-318).

Today, it is not King James the first, but Barack Obama, who thinks he is under no man and under no law, and who brazenly imposes his attempted personal rule of the USA without the Constitution.

Plato wrote:

“Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.”

[Source: -- Cooper, John et al. Complete Works By Plato, page 1402 (Hackett Publishing, 1997).]
Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the Rule of Law, writing that “law should govern”, and those in power should be “servants of the laws.” Writing in The Politics 3.16, Aristotle said:

“[I]t is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.”

This ancient concept of the Rule of Law is to be distinguished from rule by law, i.e. unconstitutional man-made orders attempting to intimidate the people into allowing the overthrow of the existing Constitution by giving a “politcal mandate” to remain in office when by demonstrable acts those who have voided their oaths of allegiance and office are outside the law, and self-discharged and are merely DETAINING office.  That is Obama’s rule BY his law, his personal override of the law, not the Constitutional Rule OF Law.

According to political science professor Li Shuguang: “The difference… is that under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”

[Source: -- Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004)]

Albert Venn Dicey, writing in The Law of the Constitution, summed up the Rule of Law as supreme above every individual, including the head of state:

“We mean in the second place, when we speak of the ‘rule of law’ as a characteristic of our country [England], not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.”

[Source: -- Source: A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm]

Obama is subject to the law of the realm, he is not above it, as required by this ancient and venerable tradition of the Rule of Law which upholds freedom.

It is also said in regard to a lawful Constitution that “a stream cannot rise above its source”. By stream is meant all those officers occupying temporary posts to which they are elected or appointed in bodies and organs created by the Constitution and through whose ministrations power temporarily flows.

Thomas Aquinas, at Question 97, Article 4 of the Summa Theologica said the same thing in these words:

“For nothing can act beyond its own species; as an effect does not exceed its cause.”

What did he mean?  He meant this:  the CONSTITUTION IS THE “CAUSE”, it creates the structures of government. Those who fill elected and appointed offices in those structures, by command of constitutional procedures, are “EFFECTS”, not CAUSES.

An EFFECT is created BY a cause; an EFFECT cannot also BE the cause; an elected or appointed officer under a CONSTITUTION who defies the Constitution by pretending to “pass” unconstitutional “laws” is an EFFECT attempting to act like a CAUSE.  This is not possible; it is unconstitutional; it is a COUP upon the lawful CAUSE, the CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution is the source, the stream is merely the channel through which the officer fulfills his functions prescribed by that source. And therefore, the officer is required to swear an oath to keep his place, an oath to not rise above the source. For, if he rises above the source of his temporary conditional power, he substitutes himself for the source; he replaces the Constitution with himself, and if in seeking to impose his tyranny he recruits the people, then he fools the people, for he exploits the people to overthrow not only the lawful Constitution, but themselves.

Delivering the judgment of the court in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch), Chief Justice John Marshall said:

The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; … It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. … The principles … so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.  Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

Url:  caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137

The press and media, and countless politicians, falsely call VOID laws “law” and the “law of the land” and declare that it was “passed” when no such thing is possible under the Constitution.  The people hear these things, and are tricked to believe that tyranny is law and that law is “stripped” and that they have lost their rights, and the Constitution, and that nonetheless, they must OBEY these void laws. This is false. This is the opposite to reality, the opposite to truth:

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

Url:  beforeitsnews.com/story/1648/952/What_to_do_about_Unconstitutional_Acts_-_National_Defense_Authorization_Act_2012_NDAA.html

Americans have NOT lost their rights.  The Constitution has not been “stripped”.  However, there have been acts of treason and attempts to overthrow the Constitution by intimidating and deceiving the people that they must obey void “law” and bow to tyranny.  The remedy is the COURT, not an “election”.  This is criminal, not political.  Congress has been self-discharged, how can Americans possibly allow those same people to sit and pretend to pass further “law”.  Where is the logic in considering that people who perpetraed treason and are necessarily self-discharged, may sit sit back down again and vote to repeal the “void” and non-existent “law” they pretended to “pass” and which is only the proof of their treason.

Those elected to office under an existing Constitution are required to swear an oath of allegiance which entails non-abuse of powers conferred (LOANED) by that existing Constitution.

A court is bound by the history of the common law to assert its own supremacy over the Executive. To paraphrase Lord Templeton’s words in M. v. Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 @ 395, to deny this supremacy would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obeys the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the [English] Civil War.

In the United States of America, the matter of judicial control of the Executive has been put in the following way:

“No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for.” (United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 US 258 @ 307-309 (1947)).

For the Courts to maintain the Rule of Law and assert control over the Executive requires steadfastness on the part of the judiciary. As Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court so memorably stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 1803:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. … This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

The supremacy of the judicial branch of government was reaffirmed by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the landmark desegregation case of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958), where it was said (@ 25) that:

“The duty to abstain from resistance to “the supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. Const., Art. VI  2, as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is “the supreme Law of the Land.”

And yet, candidate Ron Paul wants to be that “controlling authority”. He wants to play at “politics” with people who are self-discharged for acts of treason which Paul now pretends these same people have the “legal” power to “repeal”.

The Court’s most basic duty under the common law is to assert its supremacy over all other actors in the body politic. And so, it was also said in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) (@ 23) that:

“from their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders [of the United States of America] knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised. `Civilization involves subjection of force to reason, and the agency of this subjection is law.’ (Pound, The Future of Law (1937) 47 Yale L. J. 1, 13.) “

“The conception of a government by laws dominated the thoughts of those who founded this [358 U.S. 1, 24] Nation [USA] and designed its Constitution, although they knew as well as the belittlers of the conception that laws have to be made, interpreted and enforced by men. To that end, they set apart a body of men, who were to be the depositories of law, who by their disciplined training and character and by withdrawal from the usual temptations of private interest may reasonably be expected to be `as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.’ So strongly were the framers of the [United States'] Constitution bent on securing A REIGN OF LAW that they endowed the judicial office with extraordinary safeguards and prestige. No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case. That is what courts are for.”

And yet, Ron Paul is attempting to make that same “Congress” judge in its own case when most of same are self-discharged for high treason by pretending to “pass” “into law” a REIGN OF TYRANNY that is nothing but VOID laws, an attempt to rule by mere brute power in place and instead of THE CONSTITUTION.

A Sitting Executive Can Become an Incipient Coup

As history unequivocally shows, an elected Executive can depart from its oath to become a coup. They do this by deliberately exceeding the limits imposed by the existing Constitution, the sole source of their own power; and by demonstrating intent to exceed those limits (which is equivalent to discarding sworn oaths) by imposing or planning to impose a de facto “new” Constitution of their own devising in place of the existing Constitution under which they were elected and sworn.  In the present case of the NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc., the “new” constitution is A POLICE STATE.

A perfect example of a sitting Executive becoming a coup is the 11 November 1965 UDI of Ian Smith, who had served as a duly elected Prime Minister of the British self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia from 13 April 1964 until his UDI.

That UDI, that Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Southern Rhodesia by a sitting Prime Minister converted Smith and his Executive co-conspirators into traitors to the lawful Constitution. Ian Smith and his Executive rewrote, and replaced the lawful Constitution with one of their own. This is a world-famous COUP.

Therefore, it is clear that an elected and sitting Executive can indeed become a COUP.

It is the high duty of competent courts of the USA to control the Executive, that is, to reign in Executive action to keep it under the existing Constitution and within the Rule of Law.  Surely, the American people are running in droves to their courts as this is being written!  The Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, all alleged to be “REPEALED”!  And it’s a LIE.

It is a very grave situation when those who cover the news are apparently not qualified to cover it when it concerns matters of constitutional law, or constitutional law versus international law, because they MISLEAD the people!  NDAA has been “passed” they say, it is “now the law of the land” clamor the broadcasters!  And the politicians… in particular those who claim to strictly adhere and uphold the Constitution, all agree!  The Constitution’s been “repealed”, you have “no rights”! Vote for me, I’ll return your rights, I’ll “restore” the Constitution.  A generous offer: to “restore” what neither he nor his colleagues has any legal ability or power to remove!  (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

In addition, the U.N. regime has for decades now encouraged the notion of undistilled “democracy” as superior to everything else, including to lawful constitutions. This is tantamount to upholding insurrection over the Rule of Law, the very equivalent of what Obama and his self-ousted Congress are attempting to accomplish by pretending that it is just everyday election-day “politics” to attempt to impose a police state or maybe the people will vote to have their constitution “back”.

But, in fact it is NOT gone at all, because UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE VOID, THEY ARE NOT “LAW” AND SHOULD NOT BE CALLED “LAW” and they have NO POWER TO “REPEAL” HUGE PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The overthrow of the constitution cannot be “voted” on at an election; TREASON cannot be “voted” on and accepted or rejected “democratically” by the people at an election.  ELECTIONS are to determine the will of the people as to constitutionally VALID policy, not to use the people to accept or reject UNCONSTITUTIONAL rule by tyranny.

The citizens of America must make a stand for true democracy, which is not raw democracy, but democracy integrated into a lawfully entrenched constitutional system under the Rule of Law.

The failure of the press and media to exercise a criticial sense, and to discharge their duties objectively is threatening the peace and the lives of the people, most notably those who are innocent or unsophisticated.

This amounts to abuse of power by the press and media, and the consequences of this abuse can all too easily spread to other nations also attempting to uphold the Rule of Law over rule-by-the-law-of-tyrants. If one nation falls before this onslaught, then what of the others?

Obama Self-Discharged by his Void Oath of Office

Perjury is a criminal act; perjury voids the oaths of allegiance and office. If that were not the case, there would be no point taking the oath, you could step into office and do as you please. But the oath binds you to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

If, once you get in, you attempt to exceed those limits, you have LIED to gain office; the oath which alone allowed you to take your seat as a legislator is VOID as a LIE. How can Obama who has voided his oath by signing NDAA and pretending to “pass” INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION into “law” CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION, and who has ordered the cold-blooded murder of American ciizens, now pretend it’s just a “political” option and we can all “vote” on it at the next election?

That is a COUP.

United States President, John F. Kennedy, in The President and the Press:  Address Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on 27 April 1961, said:

“And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

If I were a citizen of the United States, I would wake up now and realize that precisely what President Kennedy warned of has occurred, and it is time to immediately visit a competent court to launch ouster proceedings against Obama and all who pretended to “pass” NDAA into “law” because they are NOW usurping, not exercising office, being self-discharged for treason. Citizens in every State should be running to court right now.

Moreover, those detaining the presidency of the United States of America as proxies for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and other nodes in that supranational network, plan to seize and annex Canada’s land, people and resources to complete a North American Union that is well underway on PRETEXT OF 9/11.

Obama’s unilterally imposed police-state constitution is on the SAME PRETEXT. They both go together: continental union (the hijacking of Canada) and police-state VOID “laws” to control masses in their millions, and which will also spread to Canada as my country is hijacked and reeled in to your USA police state.

We already have so-called Prime Minister Stephen Harper (de facto, not de jure), who is Obama’s best personal friend, illegally funnelling over $5 million in Canadian tax dollars to RADICAL COMMUNISTS IN QUEBEC whom Haperr calls “democratic partners”.  Harper is helping to destabilize Canada for dissolution on completion of illegal “deep integration”,  which means, he, too, is out of office for HIGH TREASON.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is waiting with his arms wide to receive the balkanized remains of Canada into his North American Soviet Police-State Union.  I’m not playing the phony “voting” game which only buys time for the COUP to cary out further tyranny.  I’m letting the Courts decide.  You should do likewise:

[1] JUDICIALLY NULLIFY

[2] IMPEACH

[3] INDICT.

This is CRIME, not POLITICS.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com/
Blog: habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com/
Blog: canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/
YouTube:  www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada/

Source

Chris Hedges suing Barak Obama and Leon Panetta

Why I’m Suing Barack Obama

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/

Posted on Jan 16, 2012

By Chris Hedges

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have “disappeared” into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “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.”

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

I met regularly with leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. I used to visit Palestine Liberation Organization leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad, in Tunis when they were branded international terrorists. I have spent time with the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and was in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey with fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. All these entities were or are labeled as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. What would this bill have meant if it had been in place when I and other Americans traveled in the 1980s with armed units of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front guerrillas in El Salvador? What would it have meant for those of us who were with the southern insurgents during the civil war in Yemen or the rebels in the southern Sudan? I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one.

Once a group is deemed to be a terrorist organization, whether it is a Palestinian charity or an element of the Uighur independence movement, the military can under this bill pick up a U.S. citizen who supported charities associated with the group or unwittingly sent money or medical supplies to front groups. We have already seen the persecution and closure of Islamic charity organizations in the United States that supported the Palestinians. Now the members of these organizations can be treated like card-carrying “terrorists” and sent to Guantanamo.

But I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state. The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites “until the end of hostilities.” Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous. The threat and reach of al-Qaida—which I spent a year covering for The New York Times in Europe and the Middle East—are marginal, despite the attacks of 9/11. The terrorist group poses no existential threat to the nation. It has been so disrupted and broken that it can barely function. Osama bin Laden was gunned down by commandos and his body dumped into the sea. Even the Pentagon says the organization is crippled. So why, a decade after the start of the so-called war on terror, do these draconian measures need to be implemented? Why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did in the killing of the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen? Why is this bill necessary when the government routinely ignores our Fifth Amendment rights—“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”—as well as our First Amendment right of free speech? How much more power do they need to fight “terrorism”?

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough. If this law is not revoked we will be no different from any sordid military dictatorship. Its implementation will be a huge leap forward for the corporate oligarchs who plan to continue to plunder the nation and use state and military security to cow the population into submission.

The oddest part of this legislation is that the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the Pentagon and the attorney general didn’t support it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said he feared the bill would actually impede the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be harder to win cooperation from suspects held by the military. “The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.

But it passed anyway. And I suspect it passed because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

Text of Hedges’ Legal Complaint (Updated)

Go to source link to see the text of the legal complaint

PREPARE FOR A JEWISH POLICE STATE

THE COMING MILITARY DICTATORSHIP of the USA will be firmly in the hands of American Jewry.

Sadly, a few popular Internet publicists — the controlled opposition — such as Alex Jones, his new adjunct, Mike Adams of Natural News, and The Activist Post (run from CIA-operated Costa Rica), simply cannot report that a “JEW,” Senator Carl Levin, is the SOLE-SPONSOR of the National Defense Authorization Act, of which Section 1031 authorizes the US military to imprison US citizens for life without any recourse to legal defense.

Do Americans realize (or even care in their state of oblivion) that all of the influential Senate and House Committee seats are chaired by Jews who sponsor outrageous Bills such as the NDAA?

First of all, heading the Military/Security apparatus of the Zionist States of America, are Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Talmudic Jew, who chairs Homeland Security, while his co-religionist, Senator Carl Levin, heads the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Is it any wonder then that we are now in a Jewish police state? Is it any wonder then that with America’s security apparatus solidly in the hands of JEWS that our freedoms have all but vanished?

Carl Levin’s brother, Sander Levin, as ranking member, chairs the House Ways and Means Committee which oversees taxation. Congressman Levin works very closely with his FELLOW JEW, Douglas Shulman, the current head of the IRS, in their Jewish enslavement of the American worker.

Eric Cantor is currently House Majority Leader, using his powerful seat to protect his wealthy Jewish backers from a justifiable tax.

Zionist Jew, Senator Chuckie Schumer, chairs the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. And we wonder why White Christian America is disappearing?

Barbara Boxer is the head of the Senate Public Works Committee, Henry Waxman heads the Senate Commerce Committee, (overseeing FOOD regulation), Diane Feinstein and Jane Harman co-chair the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, (Harman’s husband, Sidney Harman, pulls the strings at the Jewish-run Business Executives for National Security), Howard Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (of Sephardic Jewish extraction) co-chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Both Berman and Ros-Lehtinen are clamoring for another JEW-INSPIRED war on Iran. (The Body Bag industry BOOMS as American Gentile youth DIE…Jews do not send their own sons and daughters to fight their wars.)

PREPARE FOR A JEWISH POLICE STATE

JEWISH TENTACLES have penetrated the very depths of the US Military and Intelligence community.

With the Armed Forces of America dependent on the Jewish-owned Federal Reserve Bank for continual debt-at-interest funding; with the Jewish ADL’s training of local police forces; with the propaganda apparatus solidly in the hands of Jewry; and with the Jewish Lobby’s ownership of Capitol Hill — a Jewish police state is both INTACT and EQUIPPED to wield totalitarian rule over US citizens.

An example of Jewry’s control of the US Military finds Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, the keynote speaker at the Jewish warmongering Haim Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings on December 2, 2011.

And don’t think for a MINUTE that the Jewish neocons have disappeared from Washington’s policy-making arena.

AT THE RECENT CNN National Security Debate, it was the Jewish ‘think tank,’ the American Enterprise Institute, that sponsored the event. Both the Jewish neocon war-lusters Paul Wolfowitz and Frederick Kagan were granted the floor during the debate.

Partnering with the Jewish war crimes syndicate of the AEI and the Center for American Progress is the former Jewish neocon ‘think tank,’ the Project for the New American Century, which brought to us the LIES of Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction.”

The PNAC has reincarnated itself as the Foreign Policy Initiative, whose head, William Kristol, dictates DC policy from his panel position on Fox News Sunday every week.

The final Jewish takeover of America is now indelibly imprinted on the blueprint of our nation’s future.

Prepare for food shortages, power outages, blackouts and communication curtailments — and of course — the collapse of the dollar coupled with the lawlessness now operative in America as demonstrated in the MF Global theft of segregated accounts.

 

CHECKING ACCOUNTS will be next. GET OUT of dollar denominated assets as FAST AS YOU CAN! And yes, dear fellow warriors for truth, you have been warned.

Source: private email, http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=682

Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law

by Stephen Lendman

 

Obama supports draconian FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act provisions. Justification given is national security and war on terror hokum.

Henceforth, anyone anywhere, including US citizens, may be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, spurious allegations or none at all.

No reasonable proof is needed, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Henceforth, indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations.

Presidents now have unchecked dictatorial powers to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international laws won’t apply. Martial law will replace them if so ordered.

As a result, US military personnel anywhere in the world may arrest US citizens and others, throw them in military dungeons, and hold them indefinitely outside constitutionally mandated civil protections, including habeas rights, due process, and other judicial procedures.

In other words, presidents may order anyone arrested and imprisoned for life without charge or trial. Tyranny arrived in America. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections.

Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, none at all, or, for foreign nationals, sent abroad to torture prison hellholes.

Civil Libertarian Responses

On December 14, an ACLU press release headlined, “White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat,” saying:

Obama “support(s) passage of the (FY2012) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions (to) authorize the US military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.”

Responding, ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Laura Murphy said:

“The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If (he) signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and America’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.”

The last time Congress authorized indefinite detentions for uncharged US citizens without trial was in 1950 over Harry Truman’s veto.

The Emergency Detention Act provision of the Internal Security Act authorized incarceration for those considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage.

It was never used, then repealed by the 1971 Non-Detenton Act, stating:

“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”

At issue was never again subjecting US citizens to lawless internment the way Japanese Americans were in 1942. At the time, loyal citizens were forced into War Relocation Camps lawlessly.

Murphy faintly hoped Obama would emulate Truman. However, Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said he insisted on subjecting US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals. The original Senate bill excluded them. At his request, they were added.

ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer called NDAA “an awful bill….” He and other civil libertarians are outraged by its passage. Jaffer added:

This bill will “make permanent as an American law this fixture of worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial. (It’s) a bill that would further militarize counterterrorism policy.”

It’s “a bill that will make it harder to close Guantanamo. It has all the problems that we identified earlier, and it is really quite astonishing and disappointing that (Obama) is withdrawing his veto threat.”

All along, of course, it was disingenuous and hollow. As explained above, he insists on subjecting uncharged US citizens to the same draconian treatment as foreign nationals.

On December 14, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said:

Obama “made a choice with chilling consequences today when he announced he would not veto the NDAA despite the lack of change to provisions of the bill that make it even more difficult to shut down the prison at Guantanamo and make indefinite military detention(s) without trial a permanent feature of the US legal system.”

Throughout his tenure, Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. Besides trashing rule of law principles and other democratic values, waging multiple imperial wars, sanctioning torture, wrecking America’s economy, and turning a blind eye to growing human need, he’s taking a major step toward institutionalizing tyranny by supporting the “indefinite detention of citizens and non-citizens alike without charge or trial….”

On December 15, Bill of Rights Day, the Senate passed NDAA following House passage on December 14. On December 16, Obama will sign it into law, in defiance of Bill of Rights protections he’ll further abrogate with his signature.

As a result, December 15 may become known as a day of infamy when tyranny replaced constitutional law.

Henceforth, no one anywhere will be safe, and there’s no place to hide.

Major Media Scoundrels for Tyranny

Notably, US media scoundrels largely ignored the bill for months. On December 14, ahead of its enactment, The New York Times misreported its significance by failing to explain how US citizens are affected. Instead, it discussed inconsequential language changes and quoted a White House statement, saying:

“As a result of (House/Senate conference committee changes), we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the president’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto.”

A same day Washington Post (WP) article also ignored the bill’s draconian provisions. It quoted the same White House statement, and falsely claimed civilian authorities, not America’s military, will be authorized to make arrests on US soil.

A December 13 WP editorial also misreported, claiming US citizens won’t be subjected to military detention. In addition, like The Times and is own December 14 article, it discussed (ahead of passage) inconsequential changes while omitting explanation of constitutionally destructive draconian provisions.

Of course, no one ever accused America’s major media of being long on truth and full disclosure. In serving wealth and power, they fail on all counts by inverting truth and avoiding what journalists are supposed to do – their job.

Readers, viewers and listeners have a choice. Growing numbers exercising it by walking away.

They’re tuning out and making credible choices for real news and analysis more needed today perhaps than ever, given America’s draconian direction.

Hopefully eventually they all will before it’s too late to matter.

A Final Comment

On December 14, Nader.org headlined, “Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender,” saying:

The FY 2012 NDAA “will finish off some critical American rights under our Constitution.” Two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) urged an Obama veto, saying:

“One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past…”

“A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought….for domestic law enforcement….”

“A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantanamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future.”

Other military, security, and former government officials also expressed opposition.

This law will deny US citizens due process and judicial fairness. It will let military forces become law enforcers. It will make America a police state. It will abolish constitutional freedoms besides others already lost.

This “arbitrary, open-ended dictatorial White House mandate was never subjected to even a House or Senate Committee hearing….It was rammed through by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees without the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees invoking their concurrent jurisdiction for public hearings.”

As president, Obama’s done the impossible. He’s governed worse than his fiercest critics feared, worse than Bush on domestic and foreign policies.

This law furthers destroy American freedom. Obama’s support and moral cowardice assures it.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network

Source

Defense Authorization Act Will Destroy Bill of Rights

by Sherwood Ross

Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) are the sponsors of the Bill

The grim face of totalitarianism is emerging in the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) now before Congress.

This bill is the last mile post on America’s sad, well-traveled road to the butcher shop of dictatorship. We have been headed that way for some time and, with a little help from Congress, we’ll arrive there shortly, putting an ugly end to the American experiment. The Senate December 1st passed the bill by a vote of 93-7.

In the name of “defense,” NDAA underwrites $662-billion for continued U.S. aggression in our many foreign wars while, on the domestic front, it incinerates the last surviving shreds of the Bill of Rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), it authorizes presidents “to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial.” (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) So much for Amendment VI to our Constitution that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Just destroying your protection against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment means the bill’s authors Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona don’t have to bother with junking anything else. Once you’re imprisoned you won’t need any other “stinkin’ rights.”

The ACLU charges the provisions of NDAA “were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review (and), are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution….(our) fundamental freedoms are on the line.”

A few years back, President Carter denounced the Patriot Act for authorizing federal agents “to search people’s homes and businesses secretly, to confiscate property without any deadline or without giving notice that the intrusion had taken place, and to collect without notice personal information on American citizens including their medical histories, books checked out of libraries, and goods they purchase.” The NDAA is far worse than that.

Guantanamo Bay, CUBA: (FILES) Photo dated 06 December 2006 shows a detainee escorted by US military guards to his annual Admistrative Review Board hearing inside Camp Delta's Maximum Security area on the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Foreign nationals held at the US-run prison at Guantanamo Bay are barred from using the US court system to challenge their detentions, a federal appeals court ruled 20 February 2007. The DC Circuit Court in a two-to-one opinion rejected the detainees' argument that their cases were not covered by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, enacted by Congress last October after the Supreme Court challenged the legality of the panels initially set up by President George W. Bush. AFP PHOTO/FILES/Paul J. RICHARDS (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

According to Noam Chomsky, the arbitrary arrest philosophy in this country dates back to the Bush regime. “The current (Bush) government,” he writes in “Imperial Ambitions”(Metropolitan Books, 2005), “has claimed rights that go beyond any precedents, including even the right to arrest citizens, hold them in detention without access to their family or lawyers, and do so indefinitely, without charges.”

“What the American People are witnessing now with this new legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001,” says Professor Francis Boyle, the constitutional law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

University of Illinois Law Professor Francis A. Boyle

“If it is enacted into law, America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution. Our experiment in 1776 will have failed,” adds Boyle, author of “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions”(Clarity Press.)

President Obama is already exercising his kingly right to rain Hellfire missiles from drone assault planes down on any human being anywhere on the planet without a legal authorization. This is called assassination as it is utterly devoid of any semblance of rudimentary justice. Unfortunately, the president appears to have no qualms about his actions. Will such a man hesitate to arrest Americans on suspicion and imprison them for years, or worse, without trial?

Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Reagan Admin. and confirmed by the US Senate

Adds the prescient Paul Craig Roberts, “The (Obama) regime’s objection to (the) military detention (provision in NDAA) 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…(and) 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.”

Perhaps this is a good time to remind swindled American taxpayers that totalitarianism is what comes of funding a perpetual warfare state that spies on all global communications, builds the greatest  military in human history, assassinates foreign leaders, overthrows elected governments, invades small nations based on lies to seize their natural resources, and threatens the world from its 800 military bases.

The NDAA perpetuates all this and now endows the criminal leadership in Congress and the White House with the weapons to turn upon their own.

The only senators with guts to oppose the bill were Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa; Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon; Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky; and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As Sen. Paul asked during the debate, “Under the provisions, wouldn’t it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?”

If you don’t call your congressperson today to stop the NDAA, you are not likely to enjoy the blessings of liberty tomorrow. The light in the torch of the Statue of Liberty has already been snuffed out by our illegal foreign wars. The final disgrace will be to imprison the beautiful lady behind the barbed wire of the NDAA.

THE TEXT OF THE BILL S.1867: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112C8U0e8::

Edited by : Debbie Menon

But, there might be hope in over-turning the treason being committed against the American people:

ED NOTE : If Sherwood Ross’ article Defense Authorization Act Will Destroy Bill of Rights is accurate when it states that the Military will be authorized to arrest and hold anyone without access to legal representation, habeas corpus, or trial, then the Law itself is unconstitutional and all it will take is a finding in the US Supreme Court to that effect to nullify it.

 

It is quite simple and straightforward. The Constitution of the Unites States of America clearly prohibits the Congress from passing any law which is in conflict or contradiction with any of the guaranteed provisions of the Constitution or its amendments. If the Congress wishes to pass such a law, it must first amend and gain ratification of suspension of those rights of habeas corpus, legal representation, and trial which are fundamental to the Constitution.

 

Now…” finding in the US Supreme Court”  just might take some doing but, that is the Law as established by the foremost and fundamental legal document in the USA,  including this one, must derive, and depend.

This law seems to be in direct violation of the principles of  Articles I, IV,V and VI at a minimum…that is forty percent of the guarantees of personal Freedoms granted directly, unequivocally and irrevocably to the people of the US.

 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10)

 

Source