Republicans and Democrats belong to the same political party, fighting over power–not philosophy:
At a convention that included the likes of Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul was one of the few voices of reason and sanity. There is hope though–Ron Paul filled the entire convention hall at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, and some of his supporters were turned away after the room reached its capacity of 1,100 people. Ron Paul also won the straw poll, taking 31% of the vote.
Sam Adams would be proud…
For two weeks in November, delegates representing The People of the fifty states will join together in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and their Continental Congress of 1774. Continental Congress 2009 will convene as a national assembly of We The People and attest to the increasing abuses of our Governing Documents. Together, we will decide what peaceful, legal steps can be taken to bring about compliance with our Freedom documents.
Filed under: constitution, denied rights, liberties | Tagged: bob schulz, constitution, Constitutional Congress '09, constitutional convention, continental congress, violation of rights | Leave a comment »
The Pentagon is pushing for the authority to post 400,000 troops on the streets of America for active patrol in the event of an “emergency”. (The President will arbitrarily get to decide what qualifies as an “emergency”).
This would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Many state governors rightfully oppose the idea as the latest assault on states rights. The ACLU is on the correct side of this one:
Mike German, the ACLU’s national security policy counsel, expressed amazement “that the military would propose such a broad set of authorities and potentially undermine a 100-year-old prohibition against the military in domestic law enforcement with no public debate and seemingly little understanding of the threat to democracy.”
There is a dangerous trend here with the recent pushes for martial law. Notice that the push for martial law is always coming from those in power, not those who would be subject to it.
Happy 4th of July to all of you Constitution-loving “subversives” out there!
Don’t forget to visit CampaignForLiberty.com
In a recent speech Obama stood on the shoulders of the Bush/Cheney Aministration’s past Constitutional/human rights violations and outlined an “appropriate legal regime” built around pre-crime, unconvicted indefinite detentions that are “consistent with our values and our Constitution.” Which Constitution is he referring to to? I must hand it to him, Obama is a master of double-speak.
As Maddow states, “this was a beautiful speech from President Obama today with patriotic, moving, even poetic language about the rule of law and the Constitution, and one of the most radical approaches for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”
Also recommended is Glenn Greenwald’s article on Friday exposing the Facts and myths about Obama’s preventive detention proposal. Greenwald writes:
It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they “expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden” or “otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans”). That’s what “preventive” means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be “combatants.”
Once known, the details of the proposal could — and likely will — make this even more extreme by extending the “preventive detention” power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a “combatant.” After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.
…For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet been given any trial and who Obama can’t possibly release, how do you know they are “dangerous” if they haven’t been tried? Is the Government’s accusation enough for you to assume it’s true?
…As former Prime Minister John Major put it in opposing the expansion to 42 days:
It is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.
By rather stark and extreme contrast, Obama is seeking preventive detention powers that are indefinite — meaning without any end, potentially permanent. There’s no time limit on the “preventive detention.” Compare that power to the proposal that caused such a political storm in Britain and what these other governments are empowered to do. The suggestion that indefinite preventive detention without charges is some sort of common or traditional scheme is clearly false.
…Traditional “POWs” are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting. The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a “combatant” was thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the “war on terror” of being “combatants” aren’t anywhere near a “battlefield,” aren’t part of any army, aren’t wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets. In most cases, then, we thus have little more than the say-so of the U.S. Government that they are guilty, which is why actual judicial proceedings before imprisoning them is so much more vital than in the standard POW situation.
…Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you’ll get convictions is not due process. Those are called “show trials.” In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).
Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped “system of justice” is hard to imagine.
…The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the “war” will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.
The sheep better wake up.
The odds of someone winning big in the lottery and being struck dead by lightning in the same day are about as high as the odds of being killed by a terrorist.
But no one is allowed to doubt that the streets are just crawling with “terrorists”, so we get more laughable absurdity from the state that brought you the MIAC report:
It seems that the public is increasingly being acclimated to the idea of martial law–military troops domestically deployed on the streets of the U.S. (in violation of posse comitatus) acting as enforcers of the law. Recently Brian Stratton, the mayor of Schenectady, New York, announced that he may declare martial law in the wake of numerous police suspensions and terminations that have left the local department shorthanded:
Updated: 03/19/2009 06:07 AMBy: Steve Ference
SCHENECTADY, N.Y. — Schenectady Police Chief Mark Chaires said, “This is unprecedented – all these officers getting in trouble at the same time for all these different reasons.
Five Schenectady police officers recently accused of everything from driving drunk to beating up a man are leading city officials to look at taking drastic action to fix a department tainted by the few who may have acted illegally, like Darren Lawrence and Michael Brown who are accused of driving while intoxicated…
Currently, officials are reviewing the legal options and planning to present a full report in early April – options like a consolidated county-wide police force or bringing in the State Police.
The mayor said there is another option – and that would be declaring martial law. The governor would have to declare it and then the National Guard would come in. The mayor said it’s more for a transition to a new police force if that were to happen.
He said, “It may be that as a stopgap measure, that you would need military forces – State Police, National Guard.”
The Houston Chronicle (along with CNS and others) is reporting that an inquiry is underway into the possible (probable) violation of federal laws when military personnel assisted during the aftermath of a tragic mass shooting in Samson, Alabama. While the intentions of the military personnel involved were probably good, this sets a dangerous precedent and erodes the barrier posse comitatus is meant to provide against the improper and potentially tyrannical use of military forces.
Most people in the military are good (they contributed more money to Ron Paul during the elections than any other candidate!). Most police officers are good too. But the events outlined above only contribute to the erosion of trust, privacy, and liberty in this nation that began gradually years ago and now is only accelerating. Let’s hope it doesn’t continue.
SEE ALSO: Is Martial Law Coming to a Town Near You? for more information on the threat of martial law in America.
Dr. Paul was on the D.L. Hughley show last night. I have to agree with D.L. Hughley, Ron Paul makes “too much sense to be a Republican” (or a Democrat).