The NDAA Part I

What Is The US Definition Of A Terrorist?

Editor's Note: The US House voted to 'close' portions of their NDAA Meetings to the public and President Obama then waited over a month, until New Year's Eve, on a weekend, a time when the news cycle is slow and people aren't paying attention, to hide his signing of the National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA). Dick Cheney was also heavily involved in closed door sessions with the Senate. This is highly questionable because the dark lord of the Sith has no business being involved in any secretive behind the scenes legislation once he has left office.

You have to ask yourself, why did they take such secretive measures to pass this bill?

These are...illegal laws against "We The People." These are anti-Constitutional. We were not consulted. We did not give our consent.
Keep in mind, this is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Our elected representatives are servants of the people, not our masters.
This is treason against "we the people." Know that and understand it. You are now a potential threat and can be held indefinitely without trial, by the US military.

When The War On Terror Turns On Us All
Silence Is Golden; Is The NDAA A Way To Get Rid Of "Threats" To The State?
NewsFocus Op/Ed, by Tim Watts - 120511

As if our American civil liberties haven't been assaulted enough, there is a new and very dangerous threat that has presented itself from Capitol Hill. Our conniving politicians in Washington DC, the "District of Corruption," have once again passed anti-Constitution legislation against "we the people" without our consent. It's called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The irony of this new bill is that it's directed at domestic terrorism, all the while it seemingly punctuates a very good argument that the main source of terrorism in this country hasn't come from a foreign threat, but from our corporate tit sucking politicians.

The legislation of NDAA is a foreboding threat if ever there was one.

Terrorism In The US

Let me first point out that terrorism isn't as much a physical assault as it is a mental attack. While there is usually an initial violent act to precipitate the terror, fear is the component that matters most, because terrorism is a psychological assault. It is a mental ambush, a conditioning of your mind, to get you to change your way of life in order to deal with the fear of another attack.

Terrorism is the act of inflicting fear in people. You don't necessarily have to commit a physical act of violence to inflict terror. Instilling fear is the key. The threat of terror itself is more than enough to fulfill the act of terrorism.

The initial assault came on 9/11, but just try to count the number of times that we've been terrorized since then. Other than the anthrax that was traced back to a military defense lab at Ft. Detrick, we haven't had to endure another physical attack, however, we were assaulted over and over again during seven tense years of the Bush-Cheney cabal.

How many times were we warned, ad nauseam, that an attack was imminent, or that we were at a heightened state of alert? It was like living the life of a captive with your psycho sadistic abductor, for seven horrible years, with Dick Cheney dressed up in a crotchless black leather dominatrix outfit, perversely directing the fear while relishing in our suffering as if he were some sort of real life Hannibal Lectern.

We all know about the incessant fear mongering, because we all lived through that non-stop terror, together.

Our complicit media was more than willing to play along too, because they're nothing more than bought-and-paid for corporate mouthpieces who wouldn't know journalistic integrity if it bit them in the ass. God knows they must've needed the ratings too.

All in all, it was seven years of state sponsored, media propagated terrorism. You just can't count the number of times that we were terrorized during the Bush-Cheney years.

Cheney was the main preacher of fear, hands down. You just couldn't shut the guy up. Heir Bush was right behind him, with Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the administration goose-stepping alongside. Of course the minister of propaganda, Carl "Goebbels" Rove was every bit the architect of verbiage, playing his key roll as well. They sold terrorism and fear like it was a new Madison Avenue catch phrase. Ed Bernays would be proud.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge did his best to wet some pants as often as possible during his term.

A break in administrations seems to have had a significant effect in the daily and weekly fear mongering, but the Obama-Biden administration has still failed miserably at living up to its pledge of stopping our unjustified and unprovoked terror wars. Sadly enough, the War For Terror still wages onward.

Control of Fear Is Power

For the record, we've had four acts of terrorism in the US since 1993, and all of those attacks have drawn considerable skepticism from many in this country and around the world, questioning their true origin, with considerable evidence pointing to false flag events. Those who have taken the time to investigate those attacks have found much contradictory evidence that doesn't match up at all with the official story put forth.

  • Yamzi Yousef / FBI World Trade Center bombing

  • Oklahoma City Bombing (Murrah Federal Building)

  • 9/11 Attacks ( NY Word Trade Center / Washington DC Pentagon)

  • Anthrax Attacks (Targeting key Capitol Hill Democrats)

Every one of these alleged terrorist acts have countless flaws in the official story and numerous incongruities in the evidence, all of which has caused many to question what really happened. As a matter of fact, they all have more credible evidence that points to state sponsored terrorism than they do foreign terrorism. When you realize the resulting draconian new laws that sprang forth to create a US police state, implicating the powers that be in this country, it's no wonder people rightfully have questions.

These acts brought about increased powers to the Executive Branch and the office of the President. With these new dictatorial powers came oppressive new departments and anti-Constitutional legislation.

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

  • Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

  • Total Information Awareness (TIA)

  • Patriot Act

  • Military Commissions Act

  • Homegrown Terrorism Act

Our intelligence agencies and the vast military industrial complex received enormously hefty increases in funding.

As with every crime you have to follow the money and then ask yourself, who benefited the most?

George Bush told us that foreign terrorists attacked us because, "they hate us for our freedoms."

Ridiculous as that still sounds to this day, that was the feeble excuse we were all fed.

He was telling us that they begged to have their countries smart bombed to hell because they were simply too jealous of our freedoms? Mere envy had gotten the better of them? They just couldn't handle the fact that we could go to the mall whenever we want, and get to stay out past eight o'clock?

"Let's go piss off the most powerful country in the world because we're jealous of their freedom."

Is that "freedom envy" due to the fact that we're so busy occupying their countries with US troops for our corporate interests, and thus they have no freedom of their own?

That was such an asinine excuse to get from Bush, as well as a remarkably pathetic lie. If they really loved our freedom so much, they could have just simply moved here, rather than have their country carpet bombed back into the stone age.

If petty jealousy is really what Bush and Cheney wanted us to believe, then was the taking away of our freedoms just their way of evening up the score? Nothing to be jealous of anymore, is that the idea?

Sad as it is to admit, that's exactly what Bush said, on national television. He laid the total blame on our nasty ol' freedom. Darn it, that seductive harlot freedom always gets us in trouble.

The truth of the matter is, the War On Terror is a FRAUD, a bald faced lie. It is nothing more than mass murder in the name of profit and power.

As if the Patriot Act wasn't bad enough, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain decided to take us a step further into total tyranny with the 2012 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Patriot Act itself can hold foreign terror "suspects" in US concentration camps indefinitely, but the new amended NDAA also has the power to go after American citizens as well, with a military twist. All it takes under either act is to be "suspected" or "accused" of being a terrorist. It's that easy and that frightening.

Most couch-potato TV addicted lemmings would say, "But we're not supposed to like terrorists. What's the big deal? "

What these overly impressionable brain dead lemmings are missing is the US definition of just who or what a terrorist really is, according to the US Justice Department.

Definition Of A Terrorist

What exactly is a terrorist?

That's seems like a pretty stupid question, but when you clarify it just a bit and ask "What is a terrorist, by the American definition," then you're defining the question into something a bit more convoluted, something more insidious.

According to the DOJ and FBI, you can be a terrorist suspect for any of the following:

  • Anyone paying with cash.

  • Buying waterproof matches.

  • If you're missing any fingers.

  • Anyone purchasing firearms.

  • Buying night-vision binoculars.

  • People with weatherproofed ammo.

  • People belonging to "organizations."

  • Anyone buying MRE's. (Meals Ready To Eat)

  • People buying night flashlights. (There are day flashlights?)

  • Taking part in peaceful protests and demonstrations.

  • Having over a weeks worth of food in your house.

Having over a week's worth of food in your house? Really? Wow... forget those pesky devoutly religious Muslims, the Mormons actually advocate having a whole year's supply of food. They must be super-terrorists! Better lock up Donny and Marie Osmond now.

Actually the cash criteria is pretty funny considering that the cabal that prints those worthless pieces of paper, the Federal Reserve cartel, has used their fraudulent fiat currency to undermine our government and our economy anyway. Still... using cash makes you a terrorist? The credit card weasels must have been behind that one.

And many have long called FEMA a very nefarious agency, but this new list just proves that, because they advocate people having plenty of food and MRE's. They also openly encourage people to stock up on waterproofed matches and flashlights, so according to the US definition outlined above they have to be suspected as a terrorist organization. Time to waterboard the folks at FEMA!

Are you picking up on the absurdity here yet?

With the Neanderthal intellect of the "See something, say something" program, this all becomes a very scary proposition for personal freedom and the danger of unwarranted detention based merely on accusation and suspicion.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wants Google to implement a policy explicitly banning terrorist material on their Blogger servers and set up a YouTube-style “flag” system to bring such material to Google’s attention. So you could be labeled as a terrorist from someone who gets ticked off at a YouTube video you might post, or a forum comment taken out of context. Under Lieberman's proposal, we would all be at the mercy of the IQ, mental sanity, personal disposition and misguided rationale of those we encounter over the internet.

As if that isn't bad enough, if your neighbor has it in for you, or someone wants to create some misery in your life, all they have to do is report you as a terrorist to America's new Gestapo. If, in addition to a fallacious report, you just happen to match up with a couple of the outlandish criteria on the terrorist watch list, well... life could suddenly get very ugly when they come to kick your front door in during the middle of the night and drag your ass off to Stalag 13.

We have had two dark times in the past where the US faced such a threat, during World War II with the internment of Japanese Americans into domestic concentration camps, and afterward with the Internal Security Act of 1950 when we went after citizens thought to be American Communists. This era was, and still is, a national embarrassment for those who hold our Constitution and personal liberty as sacred to our definition as Americans.

Groups such as Oath Keepers have become the subject of intense scrutiny because their membership includes military vets and law enforcement officials who have a moral compass and are proponents of following the Constitution. Wow. What vile, scum of the earth those vets and officers must be. To think they've pledged an oath refusing to obey unconstitutional orders. Wow. We better lock those dangerous bastards up, huh? The world has become so much better with the officers and servicemen who are willing to follow the unlawful orders.

Another huge dichotomy in casting suspicion of terrorism is the surveillance of truthers. These are people who once again are merely patriots looking into the crimes of state. Most notable on the watchlist are those involved in the 9/11 truth movement, as well as others investigating the Oklahoma City bombing. These people are doing nothing more than promoting good government by pointing out the bad government, so only those with criminal guilt to hide have anything to worry about from these groups.

Others being watched are those who also speak out on government crimes, such as the Mena drug smuggling cartel, the Waco massacre, or the Ruby Ridge murders, etc, etc. Anyone looking into the crimes of government... let me rephrase that to be accurate... anyone looking into the crimes of the crooks who've infiltrated and used our government for illegal purposes and ill-gotten gain, those investigators will become targets by those crooked powers that be.

Soon they will add a new group to the watchlist, those looking into the orchestrated financial collapse of our economy. If you think all of this economic mess just snuck up on our best and brightest financial minds, you would be tragically mistaken. They will also target anyone looking into our second 9/11 under Bush and Cheney, the illegal electronic transfer of over half a TRILLION dollars on September 11th, 2008 before the dastardly duo left office. If the US Treasury wouldn't have caught that crime in progress and shut the whole system down, the country would have been pillaged for trillions, possibly collapsing the US economy and the rest of the world in a domino cascade effect, according to Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA).

It doesn't stop there either. Most would be shocked to learn that protestors are also considered to be terrorist suspects. Public protests are now actually considered to be low level terrorist activity. The DHS is broadening their attention to include anyone who participates in domestic unrest. This includes the Occupy protests and even Tea Party gatherings. Their scrutiny also includes those who encourage such action, or might participate in civil unrest. You don't necessarily even have to be at the event, if you are suspected of planning to attend, or encouraging others to participate, you could be arrested. You certainly will become a suspect.

Strangely enough, the militias that our forefathers sanctioned to defend our liberty and protect us from corrupt government --they are target number one right now, along with anyone else proclaiming to be an American patriot.

Sadly, the term patriot has now become synonymous with terrorist. What a perverse oxymoron.

Folks, the passage of the NDAA was not a good thing for our freedom, contrary to what Carl Levin and John McCain would tell us. They call the bill just another "tool" to be used by law enforcement (read: police state), as they do with the Patriot Act. This has the opportunity for egregious mistakes or to be horribly misused. If you are a "suspect," not a just a convicted terrorist, but a suspect... you can be held in indefinite detention, for life! And the worst of it is, no one can help you, not your lawyer nor your Congressman. No one, save maybe the President of the United States.

With all of the well intentioned patriots and good people that are being put on a terrorist watchlist, I think it's safe to say that if Jesus came back tomorrow he had better have a pretty darn good lawyer because you know damn well that by these new psychopathic definitions of what qualifies as a terrorist, they would certainly add him to the list too.

Electronic surveillance is the first step if you're a suspect. Count on law enforcement and the FBI to listen in on your phone and to snoop through your email. Unbeknown to many, your house phone can be activated even with the receiver down. The same goes for your cell phone, especially the new smartphones. Big brother will be listening in.

The Justice Department has gone so far as to argue in court for the authority to surveil and track American citizens so they can conjure up the probable cause they need for search warrants. This is somewhat of a bassackwards approach since in a just world they should already have probable cause to begin with. They have actually pled a case to the Supreme Court for the right to surveil US citizens who haven't even done anything to justify a judge issuing a legal search warrant. They want the right to GPS track you at their sole discretion. That's the making of a police state by any definition.

Does this sound like America to you?

Not one Wall Street executive has gone to prison for recklessly tanking our economy. No one from the Federal Reserve has been arrested. The entire economy is tanking in the worst way possible, yet all Congress seems to be worried about is putting more laws on the books to threaten US citizens. They have gone out of their way to set us up with the NDAA.

How could our elected representatives sell us out like this? They are the ones guilty of insider trading, bribery and God only knows what else, but "we the people" are being set up to take the fall.

You can now be considered a terrorist suspect just for saying anything inflammatory or derogatory about the government, even if it's constructive criticism. So when this author writes an article condemning specific factions of our government for being corrupt, even though the allegations are 100% accurate and factual, with corroborating evidence, that can now be construed as being subversive and a terrorist act.

Nothing like twisting those old sedition laws around, eh?

While we're pointing out the obvious, how about that right to freedom of speech?

It's not like you're slandering or libeling the guy next door. This is our government. They are elected servants. They work for us. I look at negative comments towards them as nothing more than an employee review. You've heard the old saying before, if you can't take the heat? Well maybe they should get their fat ass off the burner. Excuse me, but we didn't give them the right to lock us up when we call them out for graft and corruption.

And thanks now to Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), we can all be considered terrorists under the revised National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

"Mommy, what happened to daddy?"

The NDAA And American Terrorists

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) used to be pretty straight forward, until Levin and McCain got their hands on it. The sparks have been flying ever since. Together they proposed an amendment including language that now designates America as the "battlefield" and US citizens as potential enemy combatants. The bill originally started out as S.1253, but was later replaced with S.1867 on November 15th, 2011.

There are two things horrendously wrong with this asinine and highly unconstitutional proposal.

Number one, by declaring the US as part of the DOD battlefield in the patently bogus War On Terror, this opens a legal avenue for them to usurp the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) which prohibits the US military from intervening in police enforcement activities against "we the people." As the ACLU points out, “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.”

Number two, it opens up the possibility of now abducting innocent American citizens as terrorists, and detaining them indefinitely in a military concentration camp, such as Guantanamo Bay, under the horribly disfigured definition of terrorist, as outlined above. No charges, no Habeas Corpus, no trial... just indefinite detention, or possibly worse. This flies smack in the face of the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

Don't worry though, both Levin and McCain promise that it would never come to that.  ;o)

And then of course there's good ol' Newt Gingrich who recently said that there exists a line between criminal law and the War On Terror, and we need not worry the government will overstep its bounds. This from the guy who was having an extramarital affair at the same time he was trying to impeach Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Wow.

Stop me from laughing please, I'm seriously going to pee my pants. These guys should be opening at the Comedy Club. These are the kind of one-liners where if you're drinking something you do a spit-take. And they even say it with a straight face too.

I wouldn't trust any of these guys as far as I could throw 'em. Trusting them at their word is like a naive freshman falling for that old backseat make-out line (I promise not to...) as she's having her skirt pulled down over her ankles by the senior football captain.


The sober irony of the matter is, McCain is a former prisoner of war. How he could back such a bill is very curious indeed. He was supposedly imprisoned and brutally tortured for five years in a North Vietnamese detention camp, so his support of this bill is baffling. I apologize for the analogy, but his stance on detainment is like a rape victim advocating sexual assault.

Again, my apologies for the rude analogy, but c'mon, think about it... a POW advocating indefinite detention without a trial? Wow. Something is not right here.

I'm starting to understand why some people call him insane McCain.

  Senators Carl Levin and John McCain  (AP Photo)   

God only knows what these two were paid to introduce this legislation in the first place.

We already had the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and then later we added the Patriot Act, so what was the impetus for this egregious assault on the US Constitution? What would stir anyone to conjure up such outlandish and unconstitutional legislation? They already had the power to imprison people without charges and to use extreme force against them without due process, including U.S. citizens.

Again, why the effort to amend the NDAA?

Considering that the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division all are on the record as saying that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive, it's hard to understand why Levin and McCain thought differently from the experts.

And to think that not long ago Levin was lecturing the Federal Reserve boys on ethics and integrity. Sheesh.

According to the ACLU, even though the NDAA claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the US, many glaring loopholes remain.

One provision of the bill tells you just what you can expect in regards to fair trial under the National Defense Authorization Act. According to NDAA Sec.1036... (1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent. (2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

Well that ought to scare you right there. You get a military judge and a military counsel. That's certainly going to be impartial.

The Fight Over NDAA

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was very much against the amendment, saying that “every single American citizen at risk.” Paul stated that if the legislation passes, “the terrorists have won.”

His father, presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said of the matter, “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.” Paul added, It’s anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated,” Referring to the recent executions of two Americans with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, Paul said, “So, that makes all Americans vulnerable, and now we know American citizens are vulnerable to assassination.”

Congressman Justin Amash, (R-MI) one of only five House Republicans to vote against the bill calls it, “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” He further said, “It is destructive of our Constitution.”

“The President should not have the authority to determine whether the Constitution applies to you, no matter what the allegations,” Amash said.

Even though the bill says the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to the citizens of the United States, Amash and the ACLU both have said that the language of the bill is carefully crafted to mislead the public.

Under fire Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said that suspected terrorists should be killed before identified.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated, "You have people on the left who hate saying 'the War On Terror.' They would never ever use the military and always insist the law enforcement be used because they don't buy into the idea that we're at war. They want to criminalize the war."

Gee Lindsey, maybe that's because the war is a criminal action instigated by criminals.

Maybe it's because they know that the War On Terror is a huge fabricated crock of shit.

Senator Levin admits that through the bill the President will be granted the power to determine whether suspects remain in civilian custody or be transferred to the military, as well as whether they’d be charged in civilian courts or before a military commission; hardly a comforting thought given the recent history of ordering American citizens to be executed without a trial.

The bill was first passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives earlier this year with a resounding 322-96 vote in May. A recent December 7th vote was more lopsided with a 406-17 vote, with six Democrats and three Republicans abstaining.

So how is it that both the House and the Senate can turn their backs on the American people so freely, with an overwhelming majority vote?

The Senate at least gave the appearance of a fight. Or did they?

Rand Paul filed an amendment aimed to strike controversial section 1031 altogether, but on Tuesday, November 29th, the Senate rejected the amendment aimed at forbidding the military from indefinitely detaining US citizens and trying them without due process. The vote was 61-37.

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) proposed an amendment that would have replaced the questionable detainment provisions and replaced them with congressional oversight of the military's power, but that was shot down by a 60-38 vote.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) then proposed an amendment which would have limited the bill's detention provisions to terrorism suspects captured abroad, but it was rejected by a 55-45 vote.

Earlier in the day the Senate had voted to accept Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) amendment to limit an overly broad legislative exemption to the Freedom of Information Act. Said Leahy, “This improvement to the bill will help ensure that truly sensitive information is protected, while allowing the public to obtain important information about potential health and safety concerns.”

Excuse me if I'm perhaps overly skeptical that the focus wasn't more on the protecting of sensitive information. (Code for hiding the truth.)

Despite all of the anti-constitutional warnings, they still went ahead and voted yes on the bill anyway, by a 93-7 vote. It was damn near unanimous.

Those Senators with the moral integrity to vote no on the bill were:

  • Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA)

  • Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

  • Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK)

  • Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

  • Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

  • Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

The bill will now head to committee to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate.

The members of the House that were smart enough and cared enough to vote no were:

  • Justin Amash (R-MI)

  • Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)

  • Yvette Clarke (D-NY)

  • John Conyers (D-MI)

  • Peter DeFazio (D-OR)

  • Keith Ellison (D-MN)

  • Sam Farr (D-CA)

  • Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)

  • Michael Honda (D-CA)

  • Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

  • Barbara Lee (D-OH)

  • John Lewis (D-GA)

  • James McDermott (D-WA)

  • John Oliver (D-MA)

  • Ron Paul (R-TX)

  • Fortney Stark (D-CA)

  • Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

What everyone missed in the bill was the elephant in the room. Contrary to the Patriot Act, the key verbiage in the bill was the substitution of the word "military" over the words "law enforcement." No one bothered to argue against the notion of military intervention being used on America soil against our own people. The Posse Comitatus Act strictly prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement activities against "we the people."

This is the key to this act.

How this was missed by everyone is certainly open for question.

At the last hour the Senate claims to have abated the intent of the bill to have citizens specifically targeted, however, it does not say that the capability was removed from the bill. They're just not the initial target. Excuse me if I'm not comforted. I checked the Congressional record and so far, as of this writing, the language is still the same.

It is also unclear as to whether the "military" has been restricted on domestic soil. That is the key part of the provision that still worries many.

The areas of the bill drawing the most criticism are sections 1031 through 1036.

President Obama has stated that he will veto the detainment of US citizens, but will he also strike the use of the military on domestic soil? That would be the key to nullifying this issue, but how long will the process take? How long will they let it linger?

If indeed Obama does veto these concerns, (a big IF) then what does the NDAA offer that the Patriot Act doesn't already do? What would be the point of the amendment since the areas of concern appeared to be the main features to it?

A False Paradigm

Even though the bill was a bipartisan effort in both the House and the Senate, it had overwhelming support from conservative Republicans who outvoted Democrats in passing the legislation.

So what is it with the conservative right and their unrestrained paranoia and fear that drives them to willfully give up our freedoms, all in order to keep us free? Who is it they're really trying to protect, us or them and their crony overlords?

Don't get me wrong, deadhead Democrats voted as well, but not quite as willingly as their conservative chickens across the aisle.

I swear, if Chicken Little ever came to life, they would surely accuse the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere and the thermosphere of being Al Qaeda evildoers. Then they would label the ionosphere and exosphere as terrorist suspects by association. After that they would order an all out preemptive war on terror against the sky because that damn sky just might fall on us.


The point is, do you think these boneheads realize that Osama bin Laden is dead yet? As a matter of fact, he's so dead that he's double-dead because we killed him twice! Seriously, what are they so scared of that they're willing to fall all over themselves to gladly give up our freedom for total tyranny?

For crying out loud, give up already on the 9/11 paranoia and the terror fear, huh guys? Seriously... breathe into a brown paper bag for a few minutes. Catch your breath and calm down a little, huh?

But then, if you know the real truth, this has never ever really been about 9/11, has it?

Keep in mind that the Taliban agreed to turn Osama over if we could provide proof he was involved in 9/11. Forget being the mastermind, all they asked was a little proof that he was merely involved. We didn't provide any proof because we didn't have any.

Three unprovoked wars later, we're still fighting that nebulous phantom "War On Terror."

If Congress had any collective intellectual curiosity or integrity, they would've done their homework by now and realized long ago about the Al Qaeda lie and discovered it was all a CIA organized group to begin with, and that Osama was a CIA asset right up to the day of 9/11. It's a provable fact.

The whole "Al Qaeda" world terror threat is such a farce. Whoever decided that this was going to be the face of terror grew up watching too many "Get Smart" episodes. It's such a blatant rip-off on the old KAOS gang. Americans have a greater chance of dying in their bathtub than they do from an Al Qaeda threat. First we say we hate them, then we let them fight by our side as we illegally invade Libya and murder Gaddafi without a trial.

Geez, make up your mind guys!

So December 1st, 2011 will go down as a black day in US history. If they would have waited just six more days it could've been the second worst attack on the day of infamy.

Like the Patriot Act, the NDAA bill was written in secret. Let me expound on that so no one misses this very crucial point. The genesis of the amendment did not come about as the culmination of open committee discussion. It came as the result of close door secret meetings, which shows a less than honorable intent from a hidden entity.

It is highly unlikely that Levin and McCain woke up one morning and suddenly decided to author controversial amendments to this legislation, changes that would make the bill as much or more threatening than the heinous Patriot Act. The question needs to be addressed, who originated the impetus for this amendment and for what reason did they target the domestic US?

This act has been on the books for many years now, so why all of a sudden did it need to be changed... to allow a military police force in the US?

To ascertain the true role of NDAA you have to first realize and understand that the Patriot Act (HR 3162), already covered the detention of enemy combatants here in the US. Section 412 already provides for the indefinite detention of immigrants and other non-citizens. Even US citizens could already be held without the amendment to NDAA.

So why the new amendment to this act with seemingly redundant directives?

One distinction with NDAA from the Patriot Act goes beyond the redundancy of the cleverly veiled language that identified American citizens as potential targets. The new distinctions made were that 1) America has now been classified a legitimate battlefield, much to the delight of Lindsey Graham, and 2) law enforcement has been substituted with the military.

  • America has now been classified as a battlefield in the War On Terror.

  • The US Military is authorized to intervene in a domestic police force role.

The only conclusion one can reach is that the latter is the key component of this bill. This is nothing more than preparation for when things get worse with the economy and the people eventually do rise up en masse. It is a calculated move towards a deepened police state and another step to the new world order.

"Honor bound to defend freedom," all the while we steal freedom from others who are innocent?

Reexamining The Patriot Act

Before we move on, let's take a quick look at the Patriot Act, its short history, and what it does.

The bill was signed into law on October 26, 2001 by President George W. Bush. It was hastily pushed through Congress, yet was the obvious product of many months of legal construct. There is no way that this voluminous legislation was conceived in seven weeks time. The Patriot Act was written long before 9/11. The legalese alone in this 342 page bill took some time to hammer out. It was obviously carefully and meticulously crafted and shows much forethought, because it is a legal takeover of the United States and a usurpation of our Constitution. They made sure to dot all the I's and cross all of the T's.

The title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for...
Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism.

How warm, snugly and nationalistic to name it the "Patriot" Act.

So why are real patriots demonized by the bill? Why is it that the crooked politicians are the ones who get to define what a patriot is, yet "we the people" are given no say in what legislative government oppression is?

Does this make sense to you... the Patriot Act persecutes patriots?

Perhaps it does if the name of the act identifies those that it targets to go after.

This anti-constitutional legislation dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search communication records such as landline telephones and cell phones, as well as email. It also included financial and medical data as well as other miscellaneous records.

Let me point out a key component of this bill, one that also comes to mind with NDAA... section 802 of the act also greatly expanded the definition of terrorism to also include domestic terrorism, the apparent focus of the amended National Defense Authorization Act. The Patriot Act exponentially increased the number of areas and activities to which law enforcement powers could be applied. It was the foundation for a much more powerful US police state.

The ACLU and countless legal scholars originally argued that the Patriot Act was restrictive of citizen's rights and was unconstitutional. Many legal challenges have been filed, with the Federal courts ruling that a number of the act's provisions are indeed unconstitutional.

In regards to the Patriot Act (and the NDAA), it is key to recognize that the immediate opposition has rightfully centered on the unconstitutional authorization of indefinite detention and a loss of Habeas Corpus. Everyone deserves the right to see the evidence against them and to have a fair trial. After all, with over hundreds imprisoned at Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay) for nothing more than suspicion alone, how can anyone expect these individuals to defend their honor and integrity when they have not been proven to have committed a crime in the first place? 

So again, why the new amendment to the NDAA? Why not just stick with, or amend, the Patriot Act?

One thought might be that they hoped it would be easier to hide in a military defense spending bill. Another might be, why jeopardize the Patriot Act when you can dovetail that Act with another Act that doesn't compromise the first?

Only God and the perpetrators know the real reason why, but to miss the distinction between the two bills is negligent, because the Patriot Act deals with police force and the new NDAA deals with military force. That is the key.

The advent of the Patriot Act and the amendment of NDAA has severely assaulted many of our rights. Our homes and businesses are now subject to search and seizure, without having to gain the home owner or occupant’s permission, nor their knowledge of said search. This is very disturbing and reeks of a Stalinist state of oppression.

Even just as troubling, law enforcement agencies are able to solicit judges with a history of search and seizure bias, thereby gaining them any additional warrants that might be necessary, even if the request doesn't meet the stringent 4th Amendment requirements.

Only one person in the Senate refused to sign the Patriot Act, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. To his credit, he smelled a rat right from the start. On the House side  staunch opponents such as Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voiced their reservations as well. These brave Americans backed away from the pen and said no. Feingold stated that the act falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness because it continues to allow the US Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion. The same authority granted, redundantly, with the NDAA.

Opponents of the Patriot Act have also been quick to point out how such a large 342 page bill could be written so quickly, alleging that the legislation was written in advance and then opportunistically pushed through after 9/11, but most specifically as a result of the anthrax attacks. 

Filmmaker Michael Moore pointed out the incredible speed with which such a huge bill could be passed, literally overnight. In his film Fahrenheit 9/11, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) stated that no Senator ever read the Patriot Act before signing it. Likewise, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), said, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed? That would slow down the legislative process."

So much for standing watch over the republic and our Constitution.

Is this how the military aspect of NDAA was missed by so many? No one read it?

For the record: the Patriot Act was written by right-wing conservative Viet Dinh, a native of Saigon, South Vietnam. The irony is that he and his family are immigrants, a key target of the act. He emigrated to the US in 1978 after the communist reunification of Vietnam. A Harvard law graduate, he became Assistant Attorney General in 2001 under George W. Bush, serving until 2003

In an interview with Wired magazine, Dinh was asked about the mischaracterized of the Patriot Act. It was pointed out to him that "the government had told the American people that in many cases these laws cannot be applied to citizens and in fact some of them have been applied to U.S. citizens."

In Dinh's reply he stated, "There are a number of provisions within the USA Patriot Act that have a tremendous effect on our war against terror. However, they are tools that can be used in general criminal investigations as well."

I think we've all seen enough by now to show that the Patriot Act is being used for more than just terrorism. One example has been for marijuana raids and drug arrests. Another example would be unlawful car check points, as well as tax issues. The bill clearly has been abused by law enforcement agencies for areas other than terrorism.

The End Game

So again, why the new amendment to the NDAA? Why not just amend the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act clearly already contained specific provisions for mandatory detention. All the hullabaloo about this issue is nothing more than a distraction from the real intent of the bill, to circumvent and subdue the limitations placed by the Posse Comitatus Act, to undo the restriction of military use in law enforcement actions again US citizens.

By arguing over a redundancy in both acts, our politicians have been obfuscating the real issue and the inherent danger at hand, military use in the US against "we the people."

Under section 411 of the Patriot Act, it already broadened the scope of aliens who can be excluded or deported on terrorist-related grounds. This not only covers individuals who plot or undertake acts of terrorism, but also any individuals who are more remotely affiliated with proscribed organizations.

Again, the Patriot Act already covered the domestic War On Terror quite adequately. For cryin' out loud, that's what it was written for!

You have to ask yourself, why the new amendment to the NDAA? What crawled up Carl Levin's shorts to possibly make him feel we suddenly needed more than the Patriot Act?

An argument can be made that, there is much more to this legislation than meets the eye. We already had appropriate legislation in place to deal with terrorism, through the Patriot Act, the 2005 Military Commissions Act, and the 2007 Homegrown Terrorism Act. The fact of the matter is, in 1996 Congress had already established an Alien Terrorist Removal Court which was staffed by five federal district judges. It has never been used.

Likewise, the country has had alien and sedition acts on and off the books for years, so it wasn't like we really had to reinvent the wheel when it came to foreign or domestic terrorist threats. The Patriot Act and the NDAA are both similar to the Alien Friends Act in that all three are reliant upon executive judgment from the President, based solely on nothing more than mere suspicion.

Also, before the Patriot Act, the Secretary of State already had the ability to designate specific groups as "foreign terrorist organizations." This was done under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That statute limited its designation to foreign groups that engaged in terrorism and threatened the US.

So you see, we've had this ground covered before.

Contrary to the Homeland Security lie that errantly claimed law enforcement couldn't communicate (telephone, fax, cross the hall, or schedule meetings) before 9/11, we've actually had an effective operational framework in place for many years now to deal with domestic terrorism.

Since 9/11, our government has been militarizing local police forces with some of the most state of the art Army equipment imaginable. They are more than capable enough to fend off terrorist attacks. The government has poured billions into this effort, so what is it now that has suddenly changed to the point where the entire US military is needed for a few random terrorists? They only claimed to have 19 terrorists involved on 9/11, so how many are they expecting now? Are they expecting whole infantries of bazooka toting Muslim terrorist radicals? (An oxymoron if there ever was one.) If LA and New York could put up over a thousand police against simple Occupy protestors, surely they can handle a terrorist threat with their new military-style armor. LA alone threw 1,400 at OWS there.

So why the new impetus to put military on the streets?

My thought is that it's not about terrorists at all, but a much larger force that they fear, us! They want the amended law in effect for when the US economy crashes, to suppress "we the people."

Let's be clear about the issue, the military use in America is the key to the NDAA. This bill has the ability to be the last component of a permanent US police state.

Under the existing Patriot Act, law enforcement already has the legal right to detain terror "suspects" and detain them indefinitely. Under the amended NDAA, the military is now also authorized to do the same thing, even though that is illegal under Posse Comitatus law which prohibits such use of force against civilians within the US. They can call them enemy combatants all they want, but that does not diminish the fact that they are still United States citizens.

Considering all of the groups previously mentioned above as being terrorist "suspects," the proposed military authorization on US soil is a dangerous assault on freedom and the rights of "we the people." Most specifically at risk is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and to freedom of assembly.

So now if the bill stands as passed, and if crowds get out of hand at an Occupy protest, or when the economy finally tanks as planned, the military can be sent in to subdue the people and detain them as terrorist suspects. The penalty for that of course is a forced relocation that includes an orange jumpsuit, a chain-link fence and some razor wire, for an indefinite stay, with no Habeas Corpus rights.

This bill must be vetoed!

What We Face

We have much to fear my friends. Again, none of the patriot groups or people listed in this article deserve the unjust label of terrorist, but if you just happen to have over a week's worth of food stored up, or happen to pay in cash for that new flashlight, or if you should speak out against a government gone awry, maybe make an innocent joke or an ill-advised wish for a political leader to get their just desserts to a friend over the phone, or if someone just doesn't like you and calls you in as a threat... well then, you're in a whole lot of trouble and there's nothing that you can do about it.

Welcome to the new Amerika and the new world order police state. Please show your identification. (Your papers, please.)

Big money, corruption, and unethical political character sewed the seeds of our demise, but naiveté, ignorance, indolence, and gullible blind trust were the Achilles heal of the people.

Tell your friends and neighbors that were too ignorant to stand up and learn the truth while we had a chance, "thank you very much." To those sitcom lemmings of the former USA, enjoy your new TV shows, "Amerikan Idol," and "Goose-stepping Mit Der Stars."

And lastly, thanks to our gutless politicians on Capitol Hill who showed their true colors by screwing us all with this early Christmas present, one more time. Thanks a lot gang. There's a special spot in hell reserved for all of you.

That Niemoller moment I've been warning about is coming folks. I will be stunned if we get to see the next election, let alone a Ron Paul candidacy. If he does get to run, they will surely try to rig the election, as they did in 2000 and 2004. They don't want to risk losing the fascist state that they've put in place while the rest of this country was busy watching dysfunctional reality TV and FOX news. I very much hope that Paul will win, because I'm still looking for the hope and change we were promised in 2008. So far the change we've gotten isn't offering us much hope. We need the courage of Kennedy to return to us once again.

If this article gets me in trouble, there's not much I can do, because I've always done what I was raised to do, to stand up for my country and tell the truth. I will exercise my First Amendment right to freedom of speech as long as I can, because I can't bear to think of our kids growing up in a world without it.

It has often been said that "the truth shall set you free," but sadly enough, in the new Amerika, it could get you locked up for life, or worse.

It's not over yet though, if you've still got the will to fight, as our forefathers did for us. Keep talking to your friends, neighbors and co-workers. Spread the word about the truth. Exercise your First Amendment rights while we still have them, but do so peacefully.

Do not riot and do not disobey the law, because they've stacked the rules against us. We can still fight back within these constraints. Those with power do have fear, or they wouldn't go to the great lengths to bend the laws like this to justify their evil. We must operate within their constraints, or face the consequences of those in Egypt who have had the military called against them. We are ill equipped to take on such a well armed force, however, they cannot make a march against us so long as we adhere to the law.

As a wise man once said, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar."

It all comes down to who breaks the law first, for once they (TPTB) act against the law and against the people, the military will break from them and join with us. That is the fear of the powers that be. They do have fear. Hopefully they will feel it, as it was given to us.

Our hope and prayer is that saner minds prevail and that this law is vetoed by Obama. As it stands right now, "we the people" have a grave threat against us. Until this bill is vetoed, we have a huge problem. It must be stopped!

Many suspect Obama will be pressured against vetoing it, or that something will come up beforehand to prevent the veto. Please follow this bill. Do not forget it and move on with your life.

If the amendment passes as is, then our hope is to awaken the Generals to our cause. There are white hats that still exist in our government. Trust me, they are out there, and they don't like what is happening here anymore than we do.

There is a battle that rages behind the scenes. Let us hope and pray that the good guys win, because America was never meant to come with razor wire. It comes with freedom.

To think this paradise is open to any patriotic American for exercising our right to question our government.

I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
-General Douglas Macarthur

I M P O R T A N T   B U L L E T I N !!!

Joe and Angie Joseph from FreedomLink Radio have uncovered startling hidden documentation of secret plans for a new FEMA Continuity of Government plan. The videos are posted below. Joe breaks the news on the program Down The Rabbit Hole. Listen here:  Hour 1 | Hour 2

For the record: This article was written before Obama signed the 2012 NDAA. Our legal First Amendment rights still exist as of this posting.

Also Read:

Identifying The True Terrorist Threat  (Part II of this article)

FEMA Doc And NDAA Could Bring Martial Law (Part III of this article)

What Is The War On Terror?

An Engineered Collapse

Everything Happening Now Was Planned Before 9/11

The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11

Ron Paul Tries To Neuter The NDAA

Are We Just Going To Let This Happen? We Must Speak Up Now!

Don't think this can happen? Keep sitting on your ass and watching TV, because it's already happening.

The Legislation

HR 1540 National Defense Authorization Bill (House version)

S.1867 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Senate version)

S.1253 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (original bill)

§ 1226a. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review

HR.3162 -- The Patriot Act

Wikipedia: National Defense Authorization Act

Wikipedia: The Patriot Act

We Will Not Allow This To Be Our America! Speak Up Now!

You've got to get mad America! Let us hold those who would attack our Constitution as the real terrorists.

More Reading

20 Things You Should Know About the Bill That Could Ruin America

The Real Reason for Obama’s Threat to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill

U.S. Says Americans Are MILITARY Targets in the War on Terror

Patriotic or unconstitutional? The mandatory detention of aliens under the Patriot Act.

The Media's Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

Alternet: Is Gitmo in your future?

An Endless War on Terror?

How the Senate Murdered the Bill of Rights

NDAA Saga Is The Scariest Type of Horror Story

ACLU Decries National Defense Appropriations Act

Amnesty International's analysis: Welcome to the war

Defense Authorization Act Will Destroy Bill Of Rights

Help Us Stop Congress From Passing Indefinite Detention Bill!

NY Times blog: NDAA needs to be vetoed immediately by Pres. Obama

NDAA Provision Allowing Indefinite Detaining of US Citizens, Proceeds in Secret

Former FBI agent fears what NDAA means for Americans, calls for an Obama veto

NDAA is the 'greatest threat' to civil liberties that Americans face -- a very conservative publication not prone to sensationalism, by the way

NDAA -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- may legalize 'murder' of American citizens on US soil by the military without due process, trial, or attorney

Battlefield America: U.S. Citizens Face Indefinite Military Detention in Defense Bill Before Senate

An Open Letter To The Police And The Military

Guantánamo Forever?
Retired Four-Star Marine Generals Say No To NDAA Amendment
New York Times, by Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar - 121211

In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

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. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise. ... (Read More)

NDAA Set To Become Law: The Terror Is Nearer Than Ever

Kucinich on Defense Authorization Act: It “Authorizes Permanent Warfare Anywhere In the World.”
The NDAA contains unprecedented language that would authorize the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial – including U.S. citizens and those captured on U.S. soil.   

NDAA Full Spectrum Dominance: Kucinich battles empire's permanent global war

NDAA Sneakily Steals Rights
Oswegoniam, by Colin McNamara - 121011

The National Defense Authorization Act For The Fiscal Year 2012 – don’t be too hard on yourself if you haven’t heard of it, because there isn’t a single major news network running a story on it, and those that have dropped its name have done so in the most sickeningly nonchalant manner possible. However, the implications of this bill are very real. They are blatantly unconstitutional. They are downright terrifying. Worst of all, they’re gaining momentum. ... (Read More)

NDAA saga is the scariest type of horror story

Nationwide NDAA protests on Bill of Rights Day slated

Obama Admin Pushed for Indefinite Detention Provision

Commentary: Trampling the Bill of Rights in defense's name

Obama Must Veto Defense Authorization Bill

Veto this bill

White House Targets Domestic Extremism (A New Law Beyond NDAA)
SIP (Strategic Implementation Plan) Enacted For All Forms Of Violent Extremism
How many new laws do we need to prevent terrorism? Are our lawmakers just that inept? Did they just screw up the first few times? Why do we have so many new initiatives?

If You Don't Think The Police State Is Here, Read This!
'Family Guy' TV Writer Brutally Assaulted By Police (A Must Read!)

The American flag is appropriate and will no doubt make other Americans feel right at home.

Violations To Our Constitution And Bill Of Rights

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. -Thomas Jefferson

If you are suspected of terrorist activity, your protection under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is now gone. You can be a "suspect" just because the government falsely  accuses. You can also be wrongly by paranoid citizens through one on the many hotlines and websites set up since 9/11.

First and foremost in the unconstitutional threats posed to Americans is indefinite detention. This is the arrest and incarceration of a citizen without a trial. This is illegal in most countries, most specifically in the US, which is why our politicians have gone out of their way to pass the Patriot Act and NDAA legislation. It is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International Red Cross are two groups that have criticized the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Freedom of speech is certainly under attack since we are now at risk of arrest for criticizing our government. Encouraging activism and protest demonstrations is now subject to scrutiny by FBI and law enforcement agencies. This is a First Amendment violation.

Freedom to assembly is another right that is being stifled. It's bad enough that we are limited to "free speech zones" when it comes to protesting the powers that be in this world, but now were are being restricted from protesting at all. We are finding out that the Occupy protests and the Tea Party movement are being watched and infiltrated. Those participating are subject to arrest, even though it is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Since the purchase of firearms can now get you flagged as a terrorist, our Second Amendment rights have been added to the list of violations under both the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

The Bill of Rights protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires that all warrants have to be judicially sanctioned and backed up by probable cause. These are our Fourth Amendment rights. They have been thrown out the window under both the Patriot Act and the NDAA

The Patriot Act and the NDAA both violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.

Those accused in the US have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the state where the crime was said to take place. The accused also has the right to confront witnesses against him. This is a Sixth Amendment right. These protections have also been provided to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The federal government is prohibited from imposing excessive bail and fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. To do so is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Constitution states that no US citizen can be punished through a charge of treason without due process being met. See Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution protects the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One. Habeas corpus is a legal action or writ by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. It should be noted that the privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest. It is a right to be released from imprisonment after an arrest. Under both the Patriot Act and the NDAA this protection is lost to those "suspected" of being a terrorist.

The Supreme Court suggested in the 2001 case of INS v. St. Cyr that pure questions of law could be considered in a habeas petition. The court found that a congressional statute precluding such a review would raise "substantial constitutional questions" and that historically, the writ was always available to review the lawfulness of executive detention. To this day the Patriot Act and now NDAA stand in the way of this right, despite being illegal.

Most don't realize it yet, but the emergency order that was signed by Bush after 9/11 suspended our Constitution when the Continuity of Government was implemented. To this day, we are still under this emergency order. Bush renewed it twice and Obama has renewed it as well. Since we no longer have our freedom anymore, it looks like the terrorists have won. The "terrorists" just happen to be from Washington DC. By their own law, they should be arrested and detained indefinitely for treason. The law should most certainly apply to them as well.

"We the people" were not consulted regarding the suspension of the US Constitution and our inalienable Bill of Rights, so this is a direct act of treason against the people. There is no other way to look at it.

Our American Resolve Against Tyranny

Let it be known that the United States of America was founded upon our Declaration of Independence and its ensuing Constitution and Bill of Rights, not the Patriot Act, nor the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

For those criminals within our government who do not understand law, these founding legal documents take precedent over all laws made thereafter, including the Patriot Act, NDAA, the Military Commissions Act, and the Homegrown Terrorism Act. "We the people"  have never been asked to vote on rescinding our inalienable rights, so let it be known to those elected to serve us, we are not bound to follow any laws that violate our rights as expressed under the founding documents of the United States of America.

It doesn't matter how many billionaires and trillionaires of the Federal Reserve cabal and the Central Bank cartel believe differently, they are the criminals guilty of treason, while we have the right of law on our side. We will observe no illegal laws made in secret against us, or without our expressed consent. The lawful government of the United States of America is not the contingency government set in place after 9/11. The lawful governing body in the United States of America is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. All those who fail to acknowledge this legal right are guilty of treason and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Courtesy David Dees,


NDAA - The Stealing of American Liberty

Angie Joseph Details S.1867's Secret Torture Provision

NDAA Is Treason Against America

Senator Levin Says Obama Wanted Sec. 1031 Added To The Bill

Not So Long Ago...

Republican Senate Members Discuss NDAA Torture

Just Imagine If The Democrats Would Have Picked The People's Choice, Instead Of Picking A Candidate Supported By The Banks

Dennis Kucinich, like Ron Paul, was far and away the choice of the people in 2008.
The problem was, the banksters didn't like either of them because they both wanted
to do away with the corrupt Federal Reserve cartel that has now ruined this country.

The Real News Reports On NDAA

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show Speaks Out On The NDAA

Foreboding January 2011 Obama Speech Forecasts NDAA


Make no mistake about it, our politicians wouldn't have done this unless their handlers were scared of us.

Even EnviroNews Weighs In On NDAA

To correct this reporter, Rachel Maddow has reported on this, albeit only twice and far, far too late.

See More Videos: Identifying The True Terrorist

Treasonous Cohorts

Photo courtesy


Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America


Photo courtesy


Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images North America


Photo courtesy


Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America


Photo courtesy


Photo by Jack Gruber, USA Today

Rand Paul Defines A US Terrorist

A Prescient Scene From Star Wars

The beginning of tyranny and the Clone Wars. (This scene was cut from the movie.)

About The Author:
Tim Watts is a veteran San Francisco broadcaster with 25 years experience in the industry as an on-air talent, Program Director, and consultant. He is the creator and sole author of the websites, and He has been writing about U.S. corruption, while also investigating 9/11 from the moment that the first tower fell. He has documented his 9/11 research on a website called A September Coup

Return to