https://www.progressive.org/mag/wx070208
Why I’m Not Patriotic
By Matthew Rothschild, July 2, 2008
(In memory of George Carlin.)
It’s July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out.
Spare me the puerile parades.
Don’t play that martial music, white boy.
And don’t befoul nature’s sky with your F-16s.
You see, I don’t believe in patriotism.
It’s not that I’m anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic.
Love of country isn’t natural. It’s not something you’re born with. It’s an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game.
Yet most people accept it without inspection.
Why?
For when you stop to think about it, patriotism (especially in its malignant morph, nationalism) has done more to stack the corpses millions high in the last 300 years than any other factor, including the prodigious slayer, religion.
The victims of colonialism, from the Congo to the Philippines, fell at nationalism’s bayonet point.
World War I filled the graves with the most foolish nationalism. And Hitler and Mussolini and Imperial Japan brought nationalism to new nadirs. The flags next to the tombstones are but signed confessions—notes left by the killer after the fact.
The millions of victims of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have on their death certificates a dual diagnosis: yes communism, but also that other ism, nationalism.
The whole world almost got destroyed because of nationalism during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The bloody battles in Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia in the 1990s fed off the injured pride of competing patriotisms and all their nourished grievances.
In the last five years in Iraq, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because the United States, the patriarch of patriotism, saw fit to impose itself, without just cause, on another country. But the excuse was patriotism, wrapped in Bush’s brand of messianic militarism: that we, the great Americans, have a duty to deliver “God’s gift of freedom” to every corner of the world.
And the Congress swallowed it, and much of the American public swallowed it, because they’ve been fed a steady diet of this swill.
What is patriotism but “the narcissism of petty differences”? That’s Freud’s term, describing the disorder that compels one group to feel superior to another.
Then there’s a little multiplication problem: Can every country be the greatest country in the world?
This belief system magically transforms an accident of birth into some kind of blue ribbon.
“It’s a great country,” said the old Quaker essayist Milton Mayer. “They’re all great countries.”
At times, the appeal to patriotism may be necessary, as when harnessing the group to protect against a larger threat (Hitler) or to overthrow an oppressor (as in the anti-colonial struggles in the Third World).
But it is always a dangerous toxin to play with, and it ought to be shelved with cross and bones on the label except in these most extreme circumstances.
In an article called “Patriot Games” in the current issue of Time magazine (July 7), Peter Beinart, late of The New Republic, inspects his navel for seven pages and then throws the lint all around.
“Conservatives are right,” he says. “To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.”
And then he criticizes, incoherently, the conservative love-it-or-leave-it types.
The moral folly of his argument he himself exposes: “If liberals love America purely because it embodies ideals like liberty, justice, and equality, why shouldn’t they love Canada—which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles—even more? And what do liberals do,” he asks, “when those universal ideals collide with America’s self-interest? Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all. But it would harm Americans and thus be unpatriotic.”
This is a straw man if I ever I saw one, but if the United States gave a lot more of its budget to eradicating poverty and disease in Africa and other parts of the developing world, it might actually make us all safer.
At bottom, note how readily Beinart disposes of “liberty, justice, and equality.”
He has stripped patriotism to its vacuous essence: Love your country because it’s yours.
If we stopped that arm from reflexively saluting and concerned ourselves more with “universal ideals” than with parochial ones, we’d be a lot better off.
We wouldn’t be in Iraq, we wouldn’t have besmirched ourselves at Guantanamo, we wouldn’t be acting like some Argentinean junta that wages illegal wars and tortures people and disappears them into secret dungeons.
Love of country is a form of idolatry.
Listen, if you would, to the wisdom of Milton Mayer, writing back in 1962 a rebuke to JFK for his much-celebrated line: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Mayer would have none of it. “When Mr. Kennedy spoke those words at his inaugural, I knew that I was at odds with a society which did not immediately rebel against them,” he wrote. “They are the words of totalitarianism pure; no Jefferson could have spoken them, and no Khrushchev could have spoken them better. Could a man say what Mr. Kennedy said and also say that the difference between us and them is that they believe that man exists for the State and we believe that the State exists for man? He couldn’t, but he did. And in doing so, he read me out of society.”
When Americans retort that this is still the greatest country in the world, I have to ask why.
Are we the greatest country because we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?
No, that just makes us enormously powerful, with the capacity to destroy the Earth itself.
Are we the greatest country because we have soldiers stationed in more than 120 countries?
No, that just makes us an empire, like the empires of old, only more so.
Are we the greatest country because we are one-twentieth of the world’s population but we consume one-quarter of its resources?
No, that just must makes us a greedy and wasteful nation.
Are we the greatest country because the top 1 percent of Americans hoards 34 percent of the nation’s wealth, more than everyone in the bottom 90 percent combined?
No, that just makes us a vastly unequal nation.
Are we the greatest country because corporations are treated as real, live human beings with rights?
No, that just enshrines a plutocracy in this country.
Are we the greatest country because we take the best care of our people’s basic needs?
No, actually we don’t. We’re far down the list on health care and infant mortality and parental leave and sick leave and quality of life.
So what exactly are we talking about here?
To the extent that we’re a great (not the greatest, mind you: that’s a fool’s game) country, we’re less of a great country today.
Because those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.
From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act to the new FISA Act, and all the signing statements in between, we are less great today.
From Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base and Guantanamo, we are less great today.
From National Security Presidential Directive 51 (giving the Executive responsibility for ensuring constitutional government in an emergency) to National Security Presidential Directive 59 (expanding the collection of our biometric data), we are less great today.
From the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to InfraGard and the Terrorist Liaison Officers, we are less great today.
Admit it. We don’t have a lot to brag about today.
It is time, it is long past time, to get over the American superiority complex.
It is time, it is long past time, to put patriotism back on the shelf—out of the reach of children and madmen.
Speak2Truth
07-25-2011, 01:51 PM
Patriotism is love and defense of American principles, which are clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. You equate American Patriotism with that of Mussolini. How profoundly irrational of you.
Our nation was created with specific objectives, mainly to undo the harm against The People that governments have historically done. Such harms include seizing the fruit of our labor (tax and redistribute wealth), mandatory participation in a specific religion, government assuming arbitrary authority and so on.
I'm a Patriot because I believe in our nation's founding principles. I'll defend your Rights as vigorously as my own, including your Right to be free from other people bullying you, taking your stuff or trying to silence your opinions. Naturally, this means I'll do what it takes to stop anyone trying to inflict such wrongs against you.
Socialist principles such as Mussolini's mean that others have a collective authority to bully you, to take your stuff and to silence you if you disagree with them.
I'm proud of our national principles and I'm not stupid enough to pretend American Patriotism should be equated with Mussolini's.
Are you?
mulhouse3
08-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Patriotism means love of country- like present state of country. Or say, the past 12 years, how things have been. I loved my country back in the 1950's and '60's, when I grew up. I thought everything was peachy. Then I realized there were some problems(but that is fine). Patriotism means you don't want to cause a stir, don't want to bring up issues. 'I love my country, but...' But this country is based on bringing up issues, petitioning the national or local government for redress of grievances. So if you love that, then you are living a lie, maybe. Many such petitioners are not flagwavers, and most flagwavers of more than five times per year are not petitioners. I hate having to petition for anything, I probably won't be listened to... One thing we have in our country now, that won't go away, is the two big parties. The Constitution (bless it) does not say that we have to recognize them. The individual is supposed to run for office. The Constitution purposely avoided the issue of parties, because it sounds like political gangs, that one gang is dominating another. Presently we have a contest every two years between the two parties, in the many states and districts. The Constitution does not describe it that way. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, so I guess we have to allow the parties.
So if I love my country, then I love that, about the two parties.
Iolchan
08-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Too Much Truth ?
Matthew Rothschild's Article contains much Truth that, I am sure, every thinking person can find much to agree with. Yes, I can agree, in part; and in the emphatic words of the 'Sixties street mantras: "The Flag is a Rag" and, "Amerika Eats Her Young."
Never-the-less, I am somewhat skeptical about Matthew Rothschild's bottom line - which he omits to state in this particular article. Is he suggesting that we scrap - along with national chauvinism, militarism, & phony marching-off-to-War Patriotism - the Constitution, or worse, the Bill of Rights, which is the really precious part of the Constitution?
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as Daniel Ellsberg has said, are the only hedges at this time that are restraining and holding back the Flood of Fascism. But, inasmuch as Mr. Rothschild has written these words:
To the extent that we’re a great (not the greatest, mind you: that’s a fool’s game) country, we’re less of a great country today. Because those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney. ...he is at least on the money about whom to blame for the erosion of our former Rights. Perhaps he is actually referring, in his allusion to Checks and Balances, to the documents of our Civil heritage in which they are guarded and written into the supreme Law of the land: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Problem is, he doesn't even mention them...
Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans
www.paleoprogressives.org (https://www.paleoprogressives.org/index.html)
Speak2Truth
08-09-2011, 03:59 PM
Because those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.
No.
Bush and Cheney were assaulted for trying to restore our Right to Property (pursuit of happiness).
They were assaulted for tracking terrorist phone calling connections inside the USA, defending our Right to Life.
My condemnation of them is for not securing our Southern border - which they tried to do but were assaulted by Democrats for the effort.
I have to ask, what specific Rights did they assault?
Iolchan
08-10-2011, 12:59 AM
I have to ask, what specific Rights did they assault?
Go Figure :
The Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
=OR=
If You haven't Got the Grey Matter to Read -OR- Think, then,
Better
Yet,
Go
Ask
John Jenkel;
He's
Something
of
A
Constitution
-ialist,
Ya
Know.
...
Go,
...
Visit
him;
&
Ask
him!
!
!
For
Shame,
to
Ask
Such
a
! Stupid !
! Question !
!
=Such=
-Errant -
Non-
sense!
:
No.
Bush and Cheney were assaulted for trying to restore our Right to Property (pursuit of happiness).
They were assaulted for tracking terrorist phone calling connections inside the USA, defending our Right to Life.
My condemnation of them is for not securing our Southern border - which they tried to do but were assaulted by Democrats for the effort.
I have to ask, what specific Rights did they assault?
Public Law 107-243, the Iraq Resolution - a Fascist Law - placed us under Martial Law.
Wake Up!
We Are Still Under Martial Law & Obama Has Not Changed A Thing
Speak2Truth
08-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Can you answer my question please? Be specific - what actions did they take against you?
Specifics, please.
Speak2Truth
08-10-2011, 01:40 PM
Lolchan, here's the act you mentioned, which was NOT, I repeat NOT created by Bush/Cheney. It was created by the US Congress to re-authorize action against Saddam's forces in Iraq. What part of it harms you?
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
Iolchan
08-13-2011, 04:35 PM
References, Re: Public Law 107-243 & Why it is Bad...
Here, from various stations of the Spectrum, are some articles that indicate
that the Patriot Act, & Public Law, 107-243 are, let's just say, a little tainted...
Lolchan, here's the act you mentioned, which was NOT, I repeat NOT created by Bush/Cheney. It was created by the US Congress to re-authorize action against Saddam's forces in Iraq. What part of it harms you?
The handle this one goes by is Iolchan, >iolchan< with an i, not an L, please. The fact is, that unless you are a troll, or a government shill, a moral midgit, or a dumb, duped, red-state lumpanized-but-grateful Bush/Cheney worshiper, or some other sort of unpalattable mental idiot, the Patriot Act - which was in the pipeline before 9-11 - and its ancillary, corollary, Public Law 107-243, are disastrous for Civil Liberty and any decent form of either Republic, or Democracy, here, in these United States.
Most of the subscribers to this board accept that as a given, Speak2Truth; whether they are New Agers, Libertarians, Democrats, or radicalized Republicans like John Jenkel. Do I have to tell you what I, personally, have suffered since September 11, 2001, Mr. Vik Man?
Why, tell me, do you pry so, into my personal life?
Just wondering...
Mark Walter Evans
Speak2Truth
08-13-2011, 06:58 PM
The handle this one goes by is Iolchan, >iolchan< with an i, not an L, please.
Sorry, it looked like a lowercase "L".
The fact is, that unless you are a troll, or a government shill, a moral midgit, or a dumb, duped red-state lumpanized-but-grateful Bush/Cheney worshiper
Now you're playing the "you are an idiot if you don't repeat our ideological mantra" game. I don't accept ANYTHING as a "given". Nothing at all. I do the research. Those who want us to simply accept the "givens" they hand us are not going to be the boss of my mind.
the Patriot Act - which was in the pipeline before 9-11 - and its ancillary, corollary, Public Law 107-243, are disastrous for Civil Liberty and any decent form of either Republic, or Democracy, here, in these United States.
I provided you with the Actionable part of Public Law 107-243. Setting aside the noises others with ideological agendas make about it, can you read the actionable part and identify what is a threat to us?
If you follow the link, there's a whole lot more to it, namely Congressional recognition that Saddam continued to be in violation of all kinds of mandates, letting us know why Congress was continuing authorization of military force to eliminate his regime.
However, the ACTION part is pretty well spelled out. What do YOU see in it?
The Patriot Act is another matter that we can address shortly. Let's get to the Truth about Public Law 107-243 first.
And I'm not prying into your personal life. I have made no inquiries whatsoever. Please don't project on me something I'm not doing. I am giving you the courtesy of addressing you as your Avatar on this system, to discuss these issues, and going no further than that. However, it is clear that some folks here are, behind my back, doing a great deal of prying into mine. I get emails from other posters here...
Speak2Truth
08-13-2011, 07:08 PM
By the way - I've spent some time among the communist Veterans for Peace group. I've sat in attendance as their organizers rallied campus communist youth to engage in boisterous, aggressive acts against military recruiters. I've listened to them preach that once the US military is out of the way, the world will be safe for Socialism. Cindy Sheehan was guest speaker invited to one of their events that I attended. I met her communist handler, watched her preach how Hugo Chavez needs to be President of the United States...
The VFP tells a lot of outright lies to get people fired up, such as their flyer claiming depleted uranium is a radiation hazard. The World Health Organization is clear on the fact that it is not. It is, however, a toxic metal but that does not sound as scary so the VFP used the "radiation" theme to scare people. DU is actually used as a radiation ABSORBER because it is much better at stopping radiation than lead is.
They also preach completely unworkable "solutions", such as:
Be It Further Resolved that Veterans For Peace calls on the government of the United States to provide humanitarian aid directly to the people of Afghanistan, in non-coercive forms, to help the Afghan people rebuild their own nation and their lives in cooperation with other nations in the region; and to allow the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their own government without interference by the US.
They are not stupid but they expect you to be. We left Afghanistan alone during the 1990s so they could "freely determine their own government without interference by the US". By "freely", we mean that whoever is the most violent and aggressive takes control and brutalizes everyone else. That was the Taliban. Their history of rape, murder, oppression and torment of the Afghan People is horrific. To get a good look at life under their control, rent an Afghan movie called "Osama". It's not about bin Laden.
When we did during the '90s what VFP preaches today, Afghanistan developed the official Al Qaeda training college, complete with courses in various terrorist techniques and terror cell organizational skills, enrollment, graduation ceremonies, the works. It churned out over 20,000 graduates during the 1990s who went on to cause havoc around the world. That came to an end when the US responded to their attack on our soil on 9/11/2001 by eradicating their training college and freeing at least some of the Afghan people from Taliban brutality.
When US forces rolled into Kabul, thousands of women threw off their burquas and cheered. Many of them were murdered by the Taliban for it. However, in areas where the US has liberated women, the Burqua is no longer mandated under penalty of death, there are formal colleges and opportunities for education, the Afghan people are progressing again.
This is quite an improvement over the Taliban's brutal regime, don't you think? This is much better than the country's top college being devoted to training terrorist masterminds.
One can only think the VFP "solutions" are good ideas if one is completely incapable of understanding the consequences. One can only buy their BS if one is ignorant of the tremendous progress Afghanistan has made thanks to the US keeping the Taliban beyond the pale.
Again, they're not stupid but they expect you to be.
Iolchan
08-13-2011, 10:49 PM
Ach! I want to go out & Boogie, & Now This !
I've listened to them preach that once the US military is out of the way, the world will be safe for Socialism. Sorry, but that is pretty much what I believe... In fact, I couldn't agree more!
Cindy Sheehan was guest speaker invited to one of their events that I attended. I met her communist handler, watched her preach how Hugo Chavez needs to be President of the United States...
Communist handler? I'd like to see proof of that. As far as Hugo Chavez being President of America, I'd say he would be an improvement on ol' "It's the Name Game" 'Bama.
The VFP tells a lot of outright lies to get people fired up, such as their flyer claiming depleted uranium is a radiation hazard. The World Health Organization is clear on the fact that it is not. It is, however, a toxic metal but that does not sound as scary so the VFP used the "radiation" theme to scare people. DU is actually used as a radiation ABSORBER because it is much better at stopping radiation than lead is.
O, so now you've become an apologist for DU? Give me a break! That stuff is Deadly, and the W.H.O. is run by a bunch of plutocratic shills, hands down. Web Search: W.H.O., AIDS, Africa.
DU is just one more creative & ghastly way that old Man Bush & his Carlyle Group of sub-human Uber-Menchmen have found to make money off of various stock-piled commodities that no rational, decent human being would ever touch. It is anti-human, and absolutely, totally horrible. Yech! What did Goebels say about the Big Lie?
Be It Further Resolved that Veterans For Peace calls on the government of the United States to provide humanitarian aid directly to the people of Afghanistan, in non-coercive forms, to help the Afghan people rebuild their own nation and their lives in cooperation with other nations in the region; and to allow the people of Afghanistan to freely determine their own government without interference by the US.
Sounds like a good Idea to me - certainly a better policy than 'Bama's Trilateralist-inspired Occupation of Central Asia, in accord with Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard : American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperitives" concept of Geo-political penetration & Occupation of the highlands of Central Asia. { The term "Geo-politics" was the baby, first of Lord Alfred Milner & then, his German disciple, Professor Karl Haushaufer, the ghost-writer of Hitler's Mein Kampf.} A Nazi Concept, & Hitler's wet Dream, that ended in Stalingrad. Now recycled for consumption & implementation by the New American Global Empire.
The Veteran's For Peace Resolution is also better than Napalm, & the use of unmanned drones bombing & killing non-combatants in all-too-frequent "Collateral Damage" incidents. I am one of those defeatists, you see, who say, "Let's bring the Legions home."
When we did during the '90s what VFP preaches today, Afghanistan developed the official Al Qaeda training college, complete with courses in various terrorist techniques and terror cell organizational skills, enrollment, graduation ceremonies, the works. It churned out over 20,000 graduates during the 1990s who went on to cause havoc around the world.Yes, I agree, that was awful; but it was done, if I am not mistaken - I wasn't there, mind you - by the damned old C.I.A. under Bill Clinton's watch. That is why olde man Jenkel keeps referring to Hillary as Hillary Taliban Clinton.
When US forces rolled into Kabul, thousands of women threw off their burquas and cheered. Many of them were murdered by the Taliban for it. However, in areas where the US has liberated women, the Burqua is no longer mandated under penalty of death, there are formal colleges and opportunities for education, the Afghan people are progressing again.
This is quite an improvement over the Taliban's brutal regime, don't you think? This is much better than the country's top college being devoted to training terrorist masterminds.O.K. I agree, in part. But that was then, when the U.S. rolled in - a mere moment in time. How much CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX camera time these days is devoted to Afghan dissidents protesting the American/N.A.T.O. occupation ? Not much. It isn't convenient. Only photo-ops of thankful natives waving at American tanks as they roll in, in the first wave of "Liberation" are ever allowed to be seen by the American public on the idiot box.
The fact is, that unless you are a troll, or a government shill, a moral midgit, or a dumb, duped red-state lumpanized-but-grateful Bush/Cheney worshiper... Now you're playing the "you are an idiot if you don't repeat our ideological mantra" game. I don't accept ANYTHING as a "given". Nothing at all. I do the research. Those who want us to simply accept the "givens" they hand us are not going to be the boss of my mind.Touche. I concede; that's a somewhat valid point, Speak2Truth. So; you are not necessarily an idiot just because you don't agree with my Ideological mantras.
...the Patriot Act - which was in the pipeline before 9-11 - and its ancillary, corollary, Public Law 107-243, are disastrous for Civil Liberty and any decent form of either Republic, or Democracy, here, in these United States. I provided you with the Actionable part of Public Law 107-243. Setting aside the noises others with ideological agendas make about it, can you read the actionable part and identify what is a threat to us?
If you follow the link, there's a whole lot more to it, namely Congressional recognition that Saddam continued to be in violation of all kinds of mandates, letting us know why Congress was continuing authorization of military force to eliminate his regime.
However, the ACTION part is pretty well spelled out. What do YOU see in it?
The Patriot Act is another matter that we can address shortly. Let's get to the Truth about Public Law 107-243 first.
What do I see in it? I see a Fascist Law, that puts all United States Citizens under Martial Law; that gives Dictatorial powers to an Imperial President; that gives "law enforcement," and the whole gamut of totalitarian agencies of surveillance that were consolidated under the fascist Homelands Security Agency unlimited powers to wire-tap, & spy on, and mess with in many subtle and silent, electronic ways, etc., Citizens and Domestics, i.e., the We-uns, if we are "Thought" that is, perceived perhaps, to be "Terrorists."
But, as I have said before, Go to the Horse's Mouth. Go ask John Jenkel about these matters. He can be very cogent, and also, wise, sometimes - if we could use Robert's Rules of Order to keep him on Track. He needs a hearing. In downtown Graton, or Sebastopol. He has suffered more than anyone else I know of because of his having been a loud, in-your-face, abrasive, & persistent Canary in the Coalmine on the Issue of the Fascism inherent in Public Law 107-243 - and his rendered horse-farm is ample, daily proof that there is something rotten in the State of California, & in the Union of these here United States - and that what has happened to a proud, but brave Citizen on account of his tireless 9-11 Truth Campaign, could not have happened unless we were under Martial Law. So wake up... Touche.
Mark Walter Evans
Speak2Truth
08-15-2011, 02:10 PM
What do I see in it? I see a Fascist Law, that puts all United States Citizens under Martial Law; that gives Dictatorial powers to an Imperial President; that gives "law enforcement," and the whole gamut of totalitarian agencies of surveillance that were consolidated under the fascist Homelands Security Agency unlimited powers to wire-tap, & spy on, and mess with in many subtle and silent, electronic ways, etc., Citizens and Domestics, i.e., the We-uns, if we are "Thought" that is, perceived perhaps, to be "Terrorists."
What?
Can you show me in the text of the law where it does all this? I'm seeing authorization by Congress to take action against Saddam's regime, after a long list of "whereases" in which Saddam's ongoing violations are listed.
But, as I have said before, Go to the Horse's Mouth. Go ask John Jenkel about these matters. He can be very cogent, and also, wise, sometimes - if we could use Robert's Rules of Order to keep him on Track. He needs a hearing. In downtown Graton, or Sebastopol. He has suffered more than anyone else I know of because of his having been a loud, in-your-face, abrasive, & persistent Canary in the Coalmine on the Issue of the Fascism inherent in Public Law 107-243 - and his rendered horse-farm is ample, daily proof that there is something rotten in the State of California, & in the Union of these here United States
I absolutely agree there is something rotten and that The People are now subject to a Government that has assumed wanton, unabridged power over them. Big Trouble.
However, I'm just trying to be accurate in identifying what is and what is not a component of that.
That's why I posted the text of the law in question. I did get the right one, didn't I? It appears to be re-authorization of action against Saddam's regime.
You can read the text of that law as easily as I can. That's why I'm asking you to identify the portions that support the claims of some very strident folks out there.
( What's funny about all this is that you and I seem in agreement on WHAT is happening, just not on all the sources of it. I think that's because there is a lot of effort by agitators to misdirect. )
Iolchan
08-15-2011, 10:17 PM
[107th Congress Public Law 243]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]<doc>
</doc>
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.<note: oct.="" 16,="" 2002="" -="" [h.j.="" res.="" 114]="">
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress <<note: authorization="" for="" use="" of="" military="">Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,
</note:></note:>
<note: oct.="" 16,="" 2002="" -="" [h.j.="" res.="" 114]=""><note: authorization="" for="" use="" of="" military=""> SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.</note:></note:>
<note: oct.="" 16,="" 2002="" -="" [h.j.="" res.="" 114]=""><note: authorization="" for="" use="" of="" military=""></note:></note:>
<note: oct.="" 16,="" 2002="" -="" [h.j.="" res.="" 114]=""><note: authorization="" for="" use="" of="" military="">
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) <<note: president.="">> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
So, we are talking about the same legislation. It is a continuation of the Congressional approval for destruction of Saddam's regime that was given to Clinton in 1998, with the Iraq Liberation Act.
I would like to address the Information Clearing House link first - however, can you please READ the action sections of this legislation and please TELL ME where it in some way is an action against the American People?
You have the text right in front of you. Throw away everything that other, strident people have said ABOUT it. Read it for yourself and see what it says. I insist upon this because there are a lot of agitators out there who are full of sh*t.
What specific harm against you and me is in there?
Iolchan
08-15-2011, 11:04 PM
How to End the Iraq War and Occupation
*
From Sacramento Area Peace Action,
January, 2007
& Still Relevant
Q: Who has the power to end the Iraq war and occupation?
A: Either the President or Congress could end the occupation. However, we know Bush is not going to end it, so Congress has to. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. In response to presidential abuses of power in which troops were deployed in Vietnam without a declaration of war by Congress, Congress adopted the War Powers Act in 1973 which set a 60 day limit on the president’s ability to engage troops without Congressional authorization.
Q: Legally speaking, what does Congress need to do to end the occupation?
A: Congress needs to take two actions: 1) it needs to rescind the authorization (Public Law 107-243) it gave Bush under the War Powers Act in October 2002 to use military force against Iraq; and 2) it needs to stop funding the occupation. Since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, Congress has approved a total of $364 billion in funding for the continued assault on and occupation of Iraq. The most recent appropriation for $70 billion was made in the fall 2006. It is expected that Bush will request over $100 billion in supplemental funding for the occupation.
Click Here (https://www.peacetraintodc.com/sacpeace_action.html) to see the whole Document...
Got it ?
Public Law 107-243 is in violation of
Article I, Section 8
of the U.S.Constitution,
which reads:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
*
13645
As Such, Public Law 107-243
Establishes an Imperial Presidency,
{Himself beholden to 16 Wall Street,
120 Broadway, & 666 Fifth Avenue}
and puts We, the People under Martial Law.
Get it ?
Speak2Truth
08-16-2011, 02:21 PM
So, Congress has the power to approve WAR and Congress APPROVED WAR with the piece of legislation in question. The initial approval was in 1998, when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton failed to accomplish the goals that Congress had approved.
Al Gore and GW Bush campaigned on the promise to finish the job spelled out in the Iraq Liberation Act.
GW Bush became President and received CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO CONTINUE THE WAR as well as CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR FUNDING to do so.
Sorry, there's no "Imperial Presidency" involved. Per our Constitution, Congress deliberated and approved the ongoing effort to fulfill the Iraq Liberation Act. They could at any time have revoked that approval and funding.
NO threat against us, the American People, was contained in that legislation. I didn't find any and neither did you. The wording of the legislation is very clear - Congress approved the ongoing effort and handed the President the conditions under which they would approve it.
Everything worked as it should.
Simply reading the legislation is SO enlightening! It dispels all the agitation thrown at us by people who hope you won't read it.
rossmen
08-16-2011, 05:26 PM
yes i just did, and once again s2t what you cite does not support your point. reading you and your research has wasted my time many times. and when i call you on it you ignore me.
you clutter this forum with inanity without even knowing where it comes from. once again i ask why? your last answer to this question which i understood as, "i want to play with ideas and opinions and challenge and be challenged," does not make sense to me because when challenged about the quality of your sources, the flow of your logic, or how your citations support your opinion you fall to silence.
you fall s2t, to rise and write again with a smaller, less consequential voice. playing with you is boring.
So, Congress has the power to approve WAR and Congress APPROVED WAR with the piece of legislation in question. The initial approval was in 1998, when Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton failed to accomplish the goals that Congress had approved.
Al Gore and GW Bush campaigned on the promise to finish the job spelled out in the Iraq Liberation Act.
GW Bush became President and received CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO CONTINUE THE WAR as well as CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR FUNDING to do so.
Sorry, there's no "Imperial Presidency" involved. Per our Constitution, Congress deliberated and approved the ongoing effort to fulfill the Iraq Liberation Act. They could at any time have revoked that approval and funding.
NO threat against us, the American People, was contained in that legislation. I didn't find any and neither did you. The wording of the legislation is very clear - Congress approved the ongoing effort and handed the President the conditions under which they would approve it.
Everything worked as it should.
Simply reading the legislation is SO enlightening! It dispels all the agitation thrown at us by people who hope you won't read it.
State of California
Executive Order by the
Office of Governor
On October 16, 2002, 373 members of the United States Congress, including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Howard Berman, Ken Calvert, David Drier, Elton Gallegly, Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Mary Bono Mack, Howard McKeon, Gary Miller, Dana Roharabacher, Edward Royce and Adam Schiff from California, and President George w. Bush, installed MARTIAL LAW in the United States. They authorized the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary," under Public Law 107-243.
MARTIAL LAW is not in pursuance of the Constitution for, not of, our United States and its 27 amendments. Public Law 107-243, under which Congress authorizes "the President to use Armed Forces" at will, converted the Office of the President of the United States into an elected dictatorship and installed military rule in America without we the people being invaded or suffering domestic violence. As a result, California has been robbed of over $153.9 billion of its resources to fund United States mass murder in unconstitutional undeclared wars, and 651 Californians have been murdered by presidents who have criminally and treasonously used armed forces for their criminal profiteering sponsors.
In our Constitution for, never of, the $153.6 billion dysfunctional and $26 billion insolvent State of California ("CC"), Section 5 of our DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Article I, mandates: "The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime ."
Congress has not declared war since it declared wars against Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in World War II. Therefore, the union of states, including the State of California, is officially "in peacetime." Consequently, it is my duty as the Governor of the State of 651 elected dictator murdered Californians to order that not one cent of California's resources may be used to maintain any army in peacetime. My Office will take action against the United States to recover $153 billion of our public resources which were stolen by Congress for self-appointed commanders in chief and their fascist sponsors. It is also my duty to insure that all public officers in California understand that MARTIAL LAW in the State of California is subordinate to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I will use my supreme executive power to annul any action by any public officer in this state who administers martial law in conflict with constitutional law.
Specifically, under the supreme executive power of this State that is vested in my Office under Section 1 of Article V, CC, to "see that the law is faithfully executed," I hereby annul the unreasonable seizures of Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 130-180-051, 130-180-049, and 130-180-065 which were confiscated under Martial Law on November 4, 2009, August 25, 2010, and April 21, 2011. I compel the County of Sonoma to quitclaim these parcels back to the rightful owner, John Jenkel. These parcels were taken by the County of Sonoma under the pretense of legal authority in two harassing civil cases. They were seized without court orders under MARTIAL LAW installed by democracy ending Public betrayal 107-243. All of this was designed to terrorize my childhood friend John Jenkel and to destroy his vitally important 9-11 Truth Campaign. I will not stand for it!
SO COMPELLED.
Dated: By_________________________
Governor of California
Dear Governor Jerry Brown, Greetings & Salutations:
Not to put you on the Spot - but there are more than few of us who believe - that is, we think that the following SECTION 3, of Public Law 107-243, is Un-Constitutional, and that it violates our Civil Rights, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Do you agree? Could you take the time to Attempt to alleviate our Oppression just a little? = Oppression that has verily issued from the Federal Government, inasmuch as some of the operatives working out of the so-called "Homelands Security Agency" have exceeded their Constitutional, Lawful, powers and Authority, in afflicting, more than a few of Us, who have been deemed, by those sitting in the Oval Office & other places & Seats of Authority, to Be, perhaps; > just perhaps,< : "Terrorists."
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Thank You, Jerry, very much for your kind Consideration
of these, Quite Serious, Matters...
Signed,
Mark Walter Evans
Citizens' Petition:
__(Please Sign Here: )____
and POST ! POST ! POST!
Speak2Truth
08-17-2011, 06:09 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE JUST READ IT!! The claim:
MARTIAL LAW is not in pursuance of the Constitution for, not of, our United States and its 27 amendments. Public Law 107-243, under which Congress authorizes "the President to use Armed Forces" at will, converted the Office of the President of the United States into an elected dictatorship and installed military rule in America without we the people being invaded or suffering domestic violence.
IS COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH the LEGISLATION:
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The President is being Authorized by Congress to use US forces against Iraq. THAT IS ALL.
It is right there in black and white for you to see for yourself.
Congress is doing its Constitutional job in authorizing the Military's Commander in Chief to do HIS Constitutional job!
Iolchan
08-19-2011, 02:55 PM
[
No, I strenuously disagree:
The President is being Authorized by Congress to use US forces against Iraq. THAT IS ALL.
It is right there in black and white for you to see for yourself.
Congress is doing its Constitutional job in authorizing the Military's Commander in Chief to do HIS Constitutional job!
The President is now authorized to do anything he wants to, @ any time he wants to, & anywhere on earth - as long as he says it is to "combat terrorism" - at home and abroad. We, the American People have become the Domestic Enemy, to the State, just because some of us question the official version of what happened on September 11, 2001.
The Government, using highly sophisticated, state of the art technology, spies on, monitors, oppresses, imprisons, jails, brainwashes, and afflicts tens of thousands of Citizens who are regarded as "security risks" or "dissidents." This has continued under O'Bama.
The President is now authorized to do anything he wants to, @ any time he wants to, & anywhere on earth - as long as he says it is to "combat terrorism" - at home and abroad.
Where does it say that?
There is nothing in there removing the restrictions on Posse Comitatus, etc.
We, the American People have become the Domestic Enemy, to the State, just because some of us question the official version of what happened on September 11, 2001.
It appears to me the newly declared "domestic enemies" are those who insist the Constitution be obeyed, military veterans, people with Ron Paul stickers, anyone who might strenuously and actively object to Tyranny... namely the TEA Party.
However, I have not seen the text that relieves the President of all the Constitutional restrictions on his power. Can you quote it?
If Congress were to give the President authority to take all actions within the scope of his job as Commander in Chief against Iraq... what do you think that should look like?
Iolchan
08-20-2011, 12:20 PM
Touche'
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139525#post139525)
The President is now authorized to do anything he wants to, @ any time he wants to, & anywhere on earth - as long as he says it is to "combat terrorism" - at home and abroad.
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Speak2Truth wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=139525#post139525)
Where does it say that?
It is in the "broad interpretation" of the following: SECTION 3, of Public Law 107-243, that W and O'Bama gat the illegal, un-Constitutional "powers" to wage undeclared Wars and to commit Acts of State Terrorism on many Fronts all around the Globe during the past nine years:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Section 3 of Public Law 107-243, is the"legal basis" for Cowboy, wildcat black ops like the recent hit dun by 'Bama on Osama bin Laden - concerning which, the government of Pakistan objected, by the way, saying that their National Sovereignty had been violated; and they were correct. O'Bama, however, spoke solemnly that "Justice has been done."
Let us step back, just a few pages in Time, and Look at a few clauses of Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, that have not been in effect for many, many Moons:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
As far as issues of fiat Paper Money, this has not been in full effect for a very long time {it was seriously jeopardized with the National Bank Act of 1862} and has been almost defunct since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1914 - with the exception of the Silver Certificates, and the brief period when John Kennedy issued non-interest-bearing Treasury Notes during his administration.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
This Clause might be good ammunition to use against the Money Trust banking cartel to Which Congress willingly abrogated its own authority in 1913, and Which incorporated itself as the Federal Reserve Bank in 1914. For, are they not the greatest counterfeiters of all? - and are they not also guilty of fraudulently deceiving the American People, lo, these many years?
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
As John Jenkel has written: "Congress has not declared war since it declared wars against Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in World War II...."
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Ever since the end of the Civil War, in 1865, we have had a "Standing Army" - the very thing that Thomas Jefferson warned us, repeatedly, against. That Army was mobilized, after the Civil War, to wage war on Natives Americans beginning in the Nebraska Territory - and proceeded to fight one campaign after another throughout the West, until there was a final Round-up at Wounded Knee. It was an on-going military Campaign of Shock and Terror against the native inhabitants of the Continent - the ones who lived West of the Mississippi, and it lasted twenty-five years - in violation of the clause that states "...but no Appropriation of Money to that use shall be for longer Term than two years."
Mark Walter Evans
Speak2Truth
08-20-2011, 07:31 PM
See, we are almost completely in agreement on what has happened. The President and Congress have been ignoring the Law (Constitution) that every one of them personally swears an oath to uphold and defend before taking office. Al Gore gloated after his and Clinton's campaign finance cheating in the 1996 election that there is no more "controlling authority" to compel them to obey the Constitution or any other rules.
We do live under Tyranny now. That's just a statement of fact based on the definition of Tyranny.
The recent "super-congress" was created to bypass the will of The People who elected TEA Party politicians to try to restore obedience to the Constitution as well as stop the financial destruction of this nation. Those Patriots were impeding the "fundamental transformation" of the USA so the Representatives of The People had to be bypassed by the power-players who have assumed the role of Rulers.
However...
Public Law 107-243, under which Congress authorizes "the President to use Armed Forces" at will, converted the Office of the President of the United States into an elected dictatorship and installed military rule in America without we the people being invaded or suffering domestic violence.
... is pure horsepucky. It is a distraction from what they are really doing. It is a Red Herring. A misdirection.
It is the sort of agitprop intended to keep the public riled up and focused on the wrong culprits and the wrong "problem".
Iolchan
08-22-2011, 03:49 AM
O.K., Smart Alec!
"Horse's Mouth" Jenkel wrote:
Public Law 107-243, under which Congress authorizes "the President to use Armed Forces" at will, converted the Office of the President of the United States into an elected dictatorship and installed military rule in America without we the people being invaded or suffering domestic violence.
Speak2Truth wrote:
... is pure horsepucky. It is a distraction from what they are really doing. It is a Red Herring. A misdirection.
It is the sort of agitprop intended to keep the public riled up and focused on the wrong culprits and the wrong "problem".
O.K., Smart Alec, so what sorts of "Problems" do you consider to be Legitimate ?
- As if the looting of an old man's Barns, bunk-houses and stables, and the State-
enforced Raizing of them, before the Puir Mon's naked, bleedin' eyen, and the tramp-
elllin' O' his Civil Rights, as well as the Severin' o' his Land by Greed, dinna Account for
the puir Mon tae have a Voice, in the Commons, and be haird..
Iolchan
08-22-2011, 04:41 AM
Im Den
Dreidel,
I posted a Letter that John Jenkel,
West County hai' Squire hae sent me,
But the Host O' this here site,
Hae seen fit tae limit und Skveltch ;
So dat ders' Blut on Demt Saddle,
Und Vasser imk Bluten,
Und Kaisers Mit Skruples,
und Fuehrers mit "problems"
und Gadanken mit Fries,
Mein waffles is Free!
Yes Zu Gadanken,
Und Zie!
Mein
Waffles (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?81205-%93Down-the-Rabbit-hole-The-John-Jenkel-Underground&p=139644) ist
Frei!
Speak2Truth
08-22-2011, 02:14 PM
O.K., Smart Alec!
O.K., Smart Alec, so what sorts of "Problems" do you consider to be Legitimate ?
- As if the looting of an old man's Barns, bunk-houses and stables, and the State-
enforced Raizing of them, before the Puir Mon's naked, bleedin' eyen, and the tramp-
elllin' O' his Civil Rights, as well as the Severin' o' his Land by Greed, dinna Account for
the puir Mon tae have a Voice, in the Commons, and be haird..
I fully agree that those are problems. However, they have nothing to do with Public Law 107-243, which, as you can read for yourself, is merely Constitutional authorization by Congress for the Commander in Chief to perform his duty regarding Iraq. That permission was re-granted after the two-year limitation on said permission. (I think it's two years). Then re-granted again. Congress never gave away its Constitutional authority in the matter.
I fully AGREE that Federal Government has run amok. Here's more of what you are talking about. It comes with seizure of private homes, farms, destruction of private property to put even MORE land under Federal ownership and prohibit private use of formerly private property. The Federal Government now owns more than 30% of the land in the United States. The Democrats' appetite for for land-grabbing is insatiable. It's the Communist way, after all, to put land ownership in the hands of the State.
Obama's land grab
State, private holdings at risk
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_land_grab_NMdrPfqLaXw3aD3ZDbmgYN
Here are some of the people fighting to protect private property Rights against the "communization" of our nation...
GOP blocks Obama land grab
https://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/02/gop-blocks-obama-land-grab/
This is a bit like the Federal Control over Light Bulbs. The GOP folks are fighting for our Rights and are endlessly smeared for it.
Thad
08-22-2011, 07:59 PM
Well they rounded up the Indians and put them on the reservation to make room for the property rights of the sanctified, those who would live separate from each other raising their children like private property. All approved by the western migration of the creeping crud. The reservations are rising on both sides of this fence. But what a big turn around, all the foreclosed properties of those who thought they were signed on to the American dream, who were living the justified life in comparison to the wild people living here already, Its over when you can take somebody's home from them and they just fade out quietly beat down by this constant whittling away of their humanity until they need the mass consumption of the advertised next best thing to feel any form of uniqueness.
Maybe this evil thing that is coming upon us is no more than the result of us accepting the wild mans demise for the domesticated product as we abdicate our rights to self rule of the tribal ways. The laws of the tribes are written in the mind and soul the laws of tyrants need tomes and and tanks to carry them around.
Are we humans so incapable of self rule we need someone to tell us how to live.
Let us take back this land and free the world
revert to wild
I fully agree that those are problems. However, they have nothing to do with Public Law 107-243, which, as you can read for yourself, is merely Constitutional authorization by Congress for the Commander in Chief to perform his duty regarding Iraq. That permission was re-granted after the two-year limitation on said permission. (I think it's two years). Then re-granted again. Congress never gave away its Constitutional authority in the matter.
I fully AGREE that Federal Government has run amok. Here's more of what you are talking about. It comes with seizure of private homes, farms, destruction of private property to put even MORE land under Federal ownership and prohibit private use of formerly private property. The Federal Government now owns more than 30% of the land in the United States. The Democrats' appetite for for land-grabbing is insatiable. It's the Communist way, after all, to put land ownership in the hands of the State.
Obama's land grab
State, private holdings at risk
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_land_grab_NMdrPfqLaXw3aD3ZDbmgYN
Here are some of the people fighting to protect private property Rights against the "communization" of our nation...
GOP blocks Obama land grab
https://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/02/gop-blocks-obama-land-grab/
This is a bit like the Federal Control over Light Bulbs. The GOP folks are fighting for our Rights and are endlessly smeared for it.
Speak2Truth
08-22-2011, 08:38 PM
The laws of the tribes are written in the mind and soul
The truth is, human nature was theirs as well, along with all its brutality toward one another and towards nature.
Ripping the beating heart out of a person's chest each morning to "save the planet" - to ensure the sun would rise. Slavery, killing children and burying them in rituals, exterminating large land animals... the tribes were just peachy. How did Easter Island fare with the Tribes as its caretakers?
What happened to the Mud Pot people of the Pacific Northwest? They were peaceful and rather defenseless - so another tribe wiped them out.
Hiawatha and Deganawida had to use a lot of force to get the warring tribes to stop killing each other, to impose a unification on the unwilling.
Sadly, a lot of what we have heard about the Tribes living in the wild is a description of the tiny remainder, about 10% of the original populations, that fled to the wilderness to escape the deadly plagues that swept the New World after Europeans first arrived. Before the progressive "manifest destiny" was ever uttered, about 90% of the population was wiped out. Massive cities across what is now the southern US became deserted and overgrown.
Those who fled to the hills had to live off the land and get more in tune with nature all right.
Ancient North America: Cahokia
https://pages.interlog.com/~gilgames/cahokia.htm
What of South America? Ancient civilizations there had a long history of warfare, of building massive cities and populations and poisoning the land with their waste. They engaged in human sacrifice quite readily. Today, mummies of small children are still found in remote areas, children killed in rituals to appease ... whomever.
Tlaloc would require weeping boys in the first months of the Aztec calendar to be ritually murdered.
Sacrifices to Xipe Totec were bound to a post and shot full of arrows. The dead victim would be skinned and a priest would use the skin. Earth mother Teteoinnan required flayed female victims.
Is murdering women and children written in the soul? Not in my universe.
They were only human and surely exhibited the worst qualities one can still find in humanity.
I appreciate Mel Gibson's movie, "Apocalypto", for honestly portraying the "tribal" life. It is a powerful, moving story about a man who will do whatever it takes to save his family from ... well, you'll see.