The Day the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights Died

On December 31, 2011, New Year's Eve, while most Americans were partying and/or getting drunk, and certainly not paying attention to anything in the news, President Barack Obama quietly and out of view of the cameras, signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law and thus put the final stranglehold on our constitutional freedoms.  It is now safe to say that the nation of America as we have known it no longer exists. 

The MSM, for the most part, has ignored this story, and when they have reported on it in a very offhand way, they assure us that no one is trying to take away our freedoms despite what this bill says, and which even President Obama acknowledged.  In fact, Obama said that he did not want to sign the bill because it legalized the military to detain American citizens without charge, trial or conviction.  So to appease us, he published a signing statement which says that he will never use this bill to illegally detain Americans, but which signing statement leaves these provisions completely intact. We'll just forget about the promise of Obama never to use signing statements.    

While the MSM will continue to lie to you about this and every other important story, the alternative media on the internet is all over it.  Here is one article which I believe describes this matter very well:

Goodbye Bill of Rights, Obama Signs NDAA

To no one’s surprise, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) tonight–a great way to start off the new year! Immediately after the House of Representatives passed it on a vote of 283-136, Obama signaled that the bill would be signed in the coming weeks. This deplorable act of treason only serves to cement the fact that Obama is a serial liar who has no respect for the basic rights of American citizens.

Adam Serwer over at MotherJones explains it clearly,

The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.

On one hand the administration claims that it’s opposed to the bill to keep it’s progressive constituency at bay all the while planning to sign it anyway.

It should be noted that the Obama administration’s attacks on the civil liberties of Americans far outweigh those of the Bush administration’s. While George W. Bush only took away your 4th Amendment rights via the USA PATRIOT Act, the Obama administration has extended the USA PATRIOT Act and now repealed your 5th and 6th Amendment rights through the NDAA. You can also say goodbye to The Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it illegal for the military to stroll around the streets of suburbia and arrest people at will.

Civil rights organizations like the ACLU have come to the realization that Obama’s actions are historically some of the most dangerous and tyrannical. Laura W. Murphy of the ACLU’s Washington office, in a press release stated,

If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.

Consider this, President Truman vetoed an indefinite detention bill when the largest threat to the national defense of the United States had an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons and when domestic spies were rampant. Now, the major threat to our national security emanates from third world countries with enemies living in caves [or so they tell us], who have countlessly failed, not because of the PATRIOT Act, but because of their own incompetence. The NDAA is an abomination that is more of a threat to our freedom and our rights than any foreign terrorist ever was [and who is to say that this wasn't the intention all along?]

ANOTHER REASON TO DISTRUST THE MSM

I think my blog is beginning to sound like an arm of the Ron Paul campaign.  Although I support Congressman Paul, as I have already posted, I do not believe that even if he is elected president that it will make a lot of difference in the direction of our country.  But I am blown away at how the entire establishment truly hates this man.  And he is the only man who can be trusted not to change his positions and to stand up for the Constitution and our rights as American citizens.  Here is yet another MSM editorial telling you how dangerous this true patriotic American is.

Joseph W. McQuaid: Ron Paul is truly dangerous

By JOSEPH W. McQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher

Published Dec 29, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Dec 28, 2011)

Ron Paul is a dangerous man [I guess this is how we characterize anyone who stands up for traditional American values]. While his domestic libertarian views are quite attractive to some voters fed up with politics as usual, it is Paul’s position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous.

Those views have been largely overlooked by a news media [Overlooked?  This is all I ever hear about Ron Paul!!]  more interested in the presidential “horse race” than in the candidates’ positions on issues. But we expect New Hampshire primary voters will examine the facts and act accordingly.

Big Bad Ron Paul

According to Republicans, who is even more scary than President Obama?  An evil Muslim terrorist?  Oh no, it's a 76-year old man who constantly talks about the US Constitution and warns us that our liberties are being taken away.  The person Republicans need to fear above everyone else is - Ron Paul!!   So says Dick Morris, the one-time Bill Clinton advisor turned Republican (we can really trust him, can't we?):

From Newsmax.com:

With Ron Paul surging in Iowa polls, Dick Morris, the Fox News analyst and Republican strategist, warns of horrific [oh my, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!] consequences for the GOP if he wins the GOP nomination.

In a column released on Dickmorris.com this weekend, Morris writes:

"Ron Paul remains terrifying. He is really the ultimate liberal in the race. He wants to legalize drugs [see below], repeal the Patriot Act, slash our military spending, pull out of Afghanistan [you betcha to all of that], and remove all limits on abortion [again, see below. Also, this issue means nothing to Dick Morris - he is pro abortion] . On these issues, he’s way, way to the left of Obama. What makes him a conservative is hard to tell. [Maybe the fact that he supports the Constitution, ya think?]  But, whatever he is, he would be a disaster as the Republican candidate. His bland assertion in the last debate, that 'anyone' will beat Obama is both self-serving and inaccurate. He wouldn’t. Anyone who votes for Paul and is not brought up short by his denuding us in our defenses against terrorism and his passivity in the face of Iranian nuclear weapons, has to realize that nominating him is tantamount to re-electing Obama."

The Alternate Reality of the Mainstream Media

Why am I constantly going back to Ron Paul and how he is treated by the MSM and so-called conservative Republicans?  I do believe that Ron Paul is the best choice we have for president, but even if he should actually be elected, it still won't save our country.  It may give us a little more time, but the only thing that will save our country, and the whole world for that matter, is that the Catholic Church finally does what our Lady in the approved apparition of Fatima, has asked us to do, and that is to consecrate Russa to her immaculate heart. 

Our Lady asked that this consecration be done either in 1960 or upon the death of Sister Lucy, the only surviving seer of the 3 shepherd children involved in the Fatima apparitions, whichever came first.   Sister Lucy was still very much alive in 1960 (she did not die until 2005), and yet, even though the pope at that time, Pope John XXIII, fully acknowledged the legitimacy of Fatima and the request of our Lady to consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart, still refused to do it.  Many say that it was done by Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1982, exactly one year after he was shot.  But he never once mentioned the word "Russia", and he did not include the bishops of the world in the consecration, which must be done.  Blessed John Paul II consecrated the world to her immaculate heart "and those awaiting consecration."  That doesn't do it, and the condition of the world tells us it wasn't done.  Our Lady said that when the consecration was done, we would have peace in the world.  If not, Russia would continue to spread her errors.  You look around and tell me what is happening. 

Why does the Establishment GOP Hate Ron Paul?

It is absolutely fascinating to watch the Establishment GOP running scared out of their britches over Ron Paul.  Why do they hate this man?  Wikipedia tells us this:  A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s, delivering more than 4,000 babies, before entering politics in 1976. 

Sounds like a pretty down to earth guy to me.  Ron Paul has been married to his wife since 1957 (unlike Gingrich, who is on his 3rd wife) and has five children, one of whom, Dr. Rand Paul, is a United States senator.  According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Ron Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937."  Yet, the King of Conservatives - Rush Limbaugh - absolutely hates Ron Paul and anyone who supports him.  Why doesn't Rush, who claims to be a conservative first and foremost, love Ron Paul?  Why instead does he call Ron Paul a kook and say Congressman Paul is the only unelectable GOP candidate? 

Faux Conservatives Smear Ron Paul Ahead Of Iowa Run In

Rush Limbaugh is highly intelligent and very skilled at what he does.  I listened to him for many years, and accepted most of what he said as being sincere and from the heart.  I was a true "ditto head" (does ditto head mean replacing your brain with that of someone else?).  I no longer believe that.  As stated in this article, Limbaugh has admitted he has carried water for the Republicans.  He praises people like Dick Cheney, a card-carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  From Wikipedia:  Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, stated, "The Council of Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." 

One person for whom Limbaugh has no use whatsoever is Ron Paul, a true conservative, a medical doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and is 100% pro life, the most important issue to me.  He is also truly anti-war, the one candidate who would have agreed with Pope John Paul II that it was wrong to go to war with Iraq.  Limbaugh has supported almost every major policy of the establishment Republicans, despite his statements to the contrary.  The establishment Republicans hate Ron Paul because he, unlike the other candidates, marches to a different drummer.  It's called the Constitution. Paul is the only candidate to speak about about the National Defense Authorization Act and the fact that it is taking away all of our constitutional rights.  (Limbaugh has never mentioned this bill on his program)  Paul is the only one to question the motives of the US Government in going to war around the world.  He is the only one to question the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve, which is not federal at all but private banks which make all of our monetary decisions for us, loan us money and then charge interest on that money. 

Notice in the video below Limbaugh's statement, "there is no perfect candidate."  That is going to be the mantra you will be hearing from the Republican side.  Very much like the Democrats in 2008:  "Anyone but Bush."  It's called "propaganda."

The following is from Infowars.com. 

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
December 15, 2011

With the latest polls showing Ron Paul within touching distance of the lead in Iowa with less than three weeks to go to the caucus, the phony conservative big guns have set about a desperate campaign to smear the Congressman, for fear that he could actually win.

Appearing on on Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta van Sustren” on Wednesday night, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh lambasted Paul, claiming that “right now anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama if the election were tomorrow — easily.”

Limbaugh also suggested that Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Gov. Rick Perry were the most conservative candidates.

Watch the video.

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

This bill is finally starting to hit the mainstream media.  The article below is from The Guardian in Britain.  US media are claiming that the bill does not include Americans, but at least we are getting the truth from other countries.  Read it and weep.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles [what principles were those?]  and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".  [The War on Terrorism (or is that War of Terrorism) was never meant to have an end.  We don't even have a defined enemy, making all of us potential enemies]

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.  [The United States has now become the battle ground, and we are all potential enemy combatants]

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

DO NOT TRUST ANYONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

In my younger days, so many decades ago, I was what is called a very liberal thinker, and sided with the Democrats for the most part.  I hated Ronald Reagan who, of course, is worshipped by conservatives.  Rush Limbaugh calls him "Ronaldus Magnus." 

But then I hit my 30's, got what I thought was a "clearer" vision of the world, and decided the Democrats were completely wrong on almost every issue, and I became a Conservative Republican.  My heros were people like Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.  For the past several years I have gotten most of my news from Fox News - "fair and balanced", you know.  I listened daily to the conservative talk shows hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, etc.  I believed everything they said.  After all, they denounced those abortion loving, homosexual supporting, God-hating Democrats.  How could conservatives be wrong?