Monday, January 2, 2012

R.I.P. Bill Of Rights Rest In Peace 1789 - 2011

(NaturalNews) One of the most extraordinary documents in human history — the Bill of Rights — has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the “legal” right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming “impeachment!”


Why the Bill of Rights matters


While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a “First Amendment” to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.
This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780′s, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provide additional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.
Of course, today’s runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA’s illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government’s hijacking of websites it claims are linking to “copyright infringement” hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government’s demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution — the “commerce clause.”
Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your “right” to due process is null and void.
Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!
“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.


Obama’s signing statement means nothing


Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…”
Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the “the flexibility on which our safety depends” means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’s momentary intentions on how he “wishes” to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.
“The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield,” says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s…).
What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.


United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law


Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war:
“…the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war” says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s…).
In 1789, today’s NDAA law would have been called “treasonous,” and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.
In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.
This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).


Origins of the Bill of Rights


The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.
Mason was a strong advocate of not just states’ rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George…)
SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir…)
Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:
“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
By any honest measure, today’s U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to “reform, alter or abolish it,” to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose — to protect the rights of the People.


Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God


Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.
Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America’s final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.

Latest PPP: Ron Paul Leads In Iowa With 20%

The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo finish, with the three leading contenders all within two points of each other.  Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%. Rounding out the field are Newt Gingrich at 14%, Rick Perry at 10%, Michele Bachmann at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

CaucusGraph
The momentum in the race is completely on Santorum's side. He's moved up 8 points since a PPP poll earlier in the week, while no one else has seen more than a one point gain in their support. Among voters who say they decided who to vote for in the last seven days he leads Romney 29-17 with Paul and Gingrich both at 13.
Santorum's net favorability of 60/30 makes him easily the most popular candidate in the field. No one else's favorability exceeds 52%.  He may also have more room to grow in the final 48 hours of the campaign than the other front runners: 14% of voters say he's their second choice to 11% for Romney and only 8% for Paul. Santorum's taken the lead with two key groups of Republican voters: with Tea Partiers he's at 23% to 18% for Gingrich, 16% for Paul, 15% for Bachmann, and only 12% for Romney.  And with Evangelicals he's at 24% to 16% for Gingrich, and 15% for Paul and Romney.
Other than Santorum's rise the other big story of this week is Paul's fall.  He was at 24% earlier in the week but has dropped to 20%. That decline in support coincides with a precipitous drop in his favorability numbers. On our last poll he was at +13 (53/40), but that's gone down 21 points on the margin to -8 (43/51).
For all that Paul still has a very decent chance at winning on Tuesday- it just depends on whether his unusual coalition of young voters and non-Republicans really comes out to caucus.  Among actual Republican voters Paul is tied for 3rd place with Gingrich at 17%, behind Romney's 21% and Santorum's 19%. But with independents and Democrats who plan to vote, which we peg at 24% of the electorate, Paul leads with 30% to just 14% each for Santorum and Romney.
There's a similar divide along age lines. With seniors Paul is in only 5th place at 11%, well behind Romney's 27%, Gingrich's 19%, Santorum's 17%, and Perry's 12%. But with voters under 45, who we think will make a larger share of the electorate than they did in 2008, Paul's at 30% to 19% for Santorum and 14% for Romney.
If these young voters and independents really turn out for Paul on Tuesday he has a decent chance.  But if it's a more traditional turnout Romney's chances are looking really good.  As mentioned above he's winning with regular Republicans. He's winning with seniors. Most of the time if you're winning with those groups in Iowa you're going to win overall. Paul's unique appeal could confound some of the usual patterns about who turns out for these contests.  But if it doesn't Romney or Santorum could come out on top...it looks like it's going to be a photo finish.
Full results here

Mitt Romney The Next John Kerry

Joesph Curl - Think about it: Mitt Romney and John F. Kerry are two Boston blue-blood multimillionaires, spending summers in their island estates and winters in their mountain mansions; both are recidivist flip-floppers with long records of often indefensible 180s; and each was going up against a supremely unpopular — the catch word is “beatable” — president.
Both are stiff, highly programmed and have problems connecting with voters.
Both failed to energize the electorate during the run-up to caucuses and primaries (Mr. Kerry ran behind Howard Dean for months, and Mr. Romney has trailed just about everyone, including a guy pitching something called the “9-9-9 plan”). And both were “next in line.”
Sure, there are dozens of differences, but there are also a slew of similarities stretching back to their youths. Both were prep school prodigies then — Mr. Kerry was Yale, Mr. Romney, Harvard. Both suffered embarrassing political drubbings early in their careers, with Mr. Romney, flopping from independent to Republican and running hard away from President Reagan in his loss to Ted Kennedy, and Mr. Kerry, a carpetbagger, getting his hat handed to him by a guy named Paul W. Cronin.
Both then took the state route to power, Mr. Kerry running for lieutenant governor, Mr. Romney, two decades years later, for governor (and this time it was “Willard” who had the residency issues). Both ran as political outsiders, a proven path to victory, and a strategy each would employ in their presidential campaigns. (Incidentally, Mr. Kerry’s boss was another giant Democratic loser, Michael Dukakis.)
But unlike Mr. Kerry, who had only ceremonial duties, Mr. Romney ran the state. There, he raised gas taxes, but he also cut spending by $1.6 billion. Mr. Kerry worked on “acid rain.” (Another difference, just FYI: Mr. Romney earned his millions; Mr. Kerry married a ketchup heiress.)
For his part, Mr. Romney is well aware of the coming comparisons. Just this month, while handing out sub sandwiches aboard his campaign press bus in New Hampshire, he joked:
“Roast beef. Any roast beefs? Going once. Veggie. There we go. Ham. Ham?
“What are you guys eating back here? What do you guys want? Filet mignon with some brie, is that it back here? What’s going on. Some arugula? That’s the John Kerry bus back there, I’m sorry.”
But there are spectacular differences, too, between the two Brahmin blue-bloods. First and foremost, Mr. Kerry picked Bob Shrum as his campaign manager. The former aide for Edmund Muskie and George McGovern sports a disastrous record: He handled Dick Gephardt’s losing 1988 presidential campaign, then worked for Bob Kerrey, who lost the nomination to Bill Clinton. Need we mention his work for Al Gore? ‘Nuff said. (Although he did work for Mr. Kennedy in his 1994 victory over Mr. Romney.)
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, has surrounded himself with a top-notch team of battle-tested political veterans. Behind the scenes is Matt Rhoades, former communications director for the Massachusetts governor’s first presidential run in 2008 who also served as research director for George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004.
Even further behind the scenes is Eric Fehrnstrom, the mastermind behind Scott P. Brown’s 2010 ascension to the Senate seat Mr. Kennedy held for nearly 47 years. Sure, Mr. Brown will lose in a landslide in 2012, but still, that’s pretty amazing to win that seat. PR vet Gail Gitcho runs the communication shop — an A-team pro. Plus, many members of the 2008 squad are back, and it’s already clear they aren’t making the mistakes they made last time.
More different, though, are the incumbents. Mr. Bush was despised by the mainstream media, of course, but Americans weren’t convinced. They looked at the world, fraught with problems, and in Mr. Kerry, they just didn’t see a man able to handle them.
Mr. Obama is dramatically different from Mr. Bush: He isn’t waging a war half a world away, he is battling the U.S. economy, and losing badly. (This, Americans do get.) Mr. Obama looks awfully small — hardly a Clinton or Reagan, who each won re-election handily — and is far more like Jimmy Carter (right down to the whole America-is-letting-us-all-down schtick). Hardcore Democrats can hardly stand him. Independents who put him in office are bailing in droves. That energized youth? Yeah, not so much this time.
And most different is this: Mr. Kerry ran a very negative campaign, blitzing the airwaves with all that was wrong with Mr. Bush and, especially, America.
You know who doesn’t like that? Americans
So ponder this, Mr. Romney’s closing ad in Iowa:
“When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, one thing they knew beyond any doubt … is they were coming to a place where anything was possible; that in America, their children would have a better life.
“I believe in that America. The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and can-do propelled our standard of living and economy past that of any other nation on Earth.
“And in the campaign to come, the American ideals of economic freedom and opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense. And I intend to make it because I have lived it.
“We stand for freedom and opportunity and hope. The principles that made this nation a great and powerful leader of the world have not lost their meaning — they never will.
“I’m Mitt Romney, I believe in America, and I’m running for President of the United States.”
Not exactly John Kerry, is it?