Obama Appoints First Ever Assassination Czar


John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor was a name that you did not see on the Mainstream media today as they continue to run stories that serve to distract the masses from stories that matter.

Most recently he publicly spoke about the drone program calling it moral and ethical and just.

According to reports from the Associated Press, “John Brennan has now seized the lead in choosing who will be targeted for drone attacks and raids and Obama has delegated him the sole authority to designate people for assassination under the United States top-secret assassination program.”

Glenn Greenwald elaborates:

“Brennan has been caught peddling serious falsehoods in highly consequential cases, including falsely telling the world that Osama bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with U.S. forces entering his house and “used his wife as a human shield,” and then outright lying when he claimed about the prior year of drone attacks in Pakistan: “there hasn’t been a single collateral death.” Given his history, it is unsurprising that Brennan has been at the heart of many of the administration’s most radical acts, including claiming the power to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA without due process and the more general policy of secretly targeting people for death by drone.

Now, Brennan’s power has increased even more: he’s on his way to becoming the sole arbiter of life and death, the unchecked judge, jury and executioner of whomever he wants dead (of course, when Associated Press in this report uses the words “Terrorist” or “al-Qaida operative,” what they actually mean is: a person accused by the U.S. Government, with no due process, of involvement in Terrorism).”

Advertisements

That Pesky Constitution gets in Congress’ and Obama’s Way Again.


When Democrats and Republicans set aside their supposed differences and convincingly passed the NDAA with overwhelming bipartisan support, legalizing indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, without trial, President Obama eagerly signed the bill into law – after he had promised that he would never do such a thing. Now, someone in the establishment, thank God, is standing up to this blatant example of despotism:

Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, striking down those sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 which sought to provide Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without benefit of their 5th Amendment rights.

Indefinite Detention Already Being Enforced


Republicans gave us the NDAA provision authorizing indefinite detention, including US citizens, without trial. However, the passage of NDAA was a bipartisan effort and it was our Democratic president who signed it into law, though he promised never to use his newly attained power to detain Americans indefinitely. Now, merely one month after the bill’s passage the provision is being enforced in order to justify the continued indefinite detention without trial and torture of a prisoner at Gauntanamo Bay.

Now, members of the same Republican party who gave us the NDAA in the first place want to repeal that provision.

I hope the provision is repealed. However, this should serve as a glaring example that, for all the talk of Left versus Right, our leaders have no problem engaging in bipartisanship when it comes to stripping the common man of his rights in order to augment their own power. It should be clear to anyone that our ruling class is now concerned only with representing themselves – not the constituencies that voted them into power in the first place. The good news is that the flow of power can only become so top-heavy before it will inevitably tumble, and when it does than perhaps our government may return to its original purpose of defending liberty, justice and virtue and not making fat men fatter.

The GOP Debate: as Disappointing as Ever


The GOP primary debate is currently on live in South Carolina and I’ve finally reached the breaking point where I just can’t watch anymore. If anyone says anything else interesting I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to hear about it. In the meantime there were two statements made that I found particularly enlightening and would like to address.

The first statement was made by Romney as he announced his support for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial under suspicion of terrorist activity thus allowing the executive branch to completely bypass our judicial system. Up to this point Romney has not held a position on the bill as far as I am aware (At the time of the Iowa caucuses he stated that he was “unaware” of the bill and promised caucus goers that he would read it at a later date). I personally find it very disturbing that our legislators and many of the GOP candidates vying for the presidency have apparently lost all faith in our judicial system during the course of their war on terror and are now eager to completely excise it from our justice system at the expense of the constitutional rights of all American citizens.

The second statement was made by Rick Perry regarding the marines who urinated on the corpses of Afghani soldiers. In response to the marines the Secretary of Defense and the Obama administration condemned the actions as “utterly despicable”. Perry, however, while he thinks that these soldiers should be punished by the military, believes that this reaction from the President is too strong and that the marines should not be prosecuted for any crime. Furthermore, he relayed this incident in order to provide an “example” of Obama’s “disdain” for our military. Let me repeat that: Rick Perry thinks that condemning the marines who urinated on foreign soldiers corpses within their own land as “utterly despicable” equates to disdain by Obama for our entire armed forces, dishonoring them and all their sacrifice. However, what Rick Perry seems incapable of understanding is that the president’s words were entirely accurate: desecration of dead bodies illustrates a grave disrespect for the sanctity of human life and the immutable truth that each and every human being is made in the image and likeness of God our creator. President Obama’s choice of words were completely appropriate in respect to this violation and in no way was a reflection of his views on the military at large. That Rick Perry is willing to compromise recognition of the infinite value innate to human life for blind allegiance to our military bodes ill for the protection of human rights.

This is why I don’t like watching these debates. It doesn’t seem like much to ask for public servants who will simply uphold our constitutional rights and respect and abide by Catholic moral teaching yet apparently even that is more than our politicians can handle. I urge my readers that, in order to send a message to our politicians, you simply support a candidate compatible with Catholic moral teaching no matter how “unelectable” they may be, a candidate who doesn’t support abortion, unjust war, assassinations, torture, preemptive military strikes, foreign aid to dictators, covert operations against countries without declaration of war, redefinition of marriage, or increases in government power at the expense of our constitutional rights to name a few. Its more difficult than it sounds as such candidates appear to be rare this presidential race. The only major candidate on either side of the aisle who comes close in my opinion is Ron Paul, but don’t take my word for it; find out for yourself.

The Neo-Nuremberg Law


In 1935 Adolf Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws, antisemitic laws that revoked citizenship based on race, bloodline, and opposition directed towards the Nazi regime or Hitler himself. Today, in 2012 we have a similar piece of legislation being presented to our very own house and senate here in the United States of America. This “neo-nuremberg” law, known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, seeks to grant our federal government unprecedented powers with no foundation in the constitution, namely, the ability to revoke citizenship of any US citizen based on “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” By stripping away US citizenship, our government effectively removes all protection under the law, thus flinging wide the door to unfettered human rights violations completely divorced from the checks and balances of true democracy meant to protect us from this very type of despotism.

At present it is unclear whether, under this new bill, a trial and conviction in court is even necessary to revoke citizenship on the grounds mentioned above as the bill makes no qualifications on how or on what authority a decision to revoke citizenship can be made. However, according to sources such as InfoWars.com  “This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.” (emphasis added)

That our ruling class elites seem to think that its a good idea to model our justice system off of Hitler’s fascist Nazi regime speaks to just how out of touch they are with the American people, the constitution, and the inviolability and sanctity of human rights.

The full text of the Enemy Expatriation Act can be found here.

Enemy Expatriation Act


William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake! – A Man for All Seasons

Recently, Obama signed the NDAA into law, authorizing the indefinite detention of anyone, including US citizens on US soil, without trial under the pretext of potential terrorism. However, the president vowed to never use his new power to detain a US citizen without due process because that would be against the “spirit of America.” With the introduction of the Enemy Expatriation Act Obama’s promise, however, may be rendered irrelevant. If the bill, currently being passed through Congress, passes in its current form it will let the government strip away citizenship from any person engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law is brief, but in short it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat. With the power granted by the EEA to strip away citizenship and by the NDAA to indefinitely detain without trial literally anyone could be whisked away on government whim, representing an American despotism in direct violation of our constitution and, indeed, the spirit of America as it was meant to be according to our founders.

The story can be found at Russia Today. Unfortunately a google search of “enemy expatriation act” yielded only the one major news outlet as of the publication of this post. No mainstream media outlet has picked up the story of one of the greatest threats to American liberty, possibly in the history of our country. No CNN, no Fox, nothing.

Its a sad commentary on the state of American public discourse when the most reliable news source I can find on US affairs is Russia Today.