It is high time for all the partisan enablers of the two-party duopoly to admit their culpability in fostering and supporting the current state of fascism we now serve under via the oligarchic regimes you have voted for.

If you voted for Reagan, Clinton, either Bush, or Obama, you are the reason we have the onerous, stifling government we currently have. If you voted for Grassley, Harkin, Durbin, or Obama for Senate, we have you to thank for the mess we are in. If you voted for an incumbent in the last election, you have forsaken your countrymen and future generations.

We have a rogue government, a government that has been allowed to discard the fundamental principle of our founding documents: a government that governs by the consent of the people and follows the rule of law.

Evidence of these claims is Obama's speech at the National Archives last week, during which he trial-ballooned his plan for justifying prolonged detention without prosecution under a new "legal regime." Obama said that after September 11, 2001, "our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out." Standing in front of the founding documents no less, Obama eloquently rolled out his plan to ratchet up even more unconstitutional presidential authority.

Like George W. Bush, Obama continues to perpetuate the myth that his job is to keep us safe: "My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe." Well, not so much, Mr. President. Here is the oath of office you took: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.)

The executive branch is not charged with keeping us safe. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but only when we are at war via a vote of Congress. That has not happened since World War II. It is specifically mandated in the Constitution that only Congress shall have the authority to "provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section 8.)

So as long as Americans swallow this falsehood that the president is there to keep us safe, and as long as you continue to vote for a candidate from the two-headed, two-party beast, our rights and freedoms will continue to be usurped. Is Obama honoring his oath when he seeks to establish a new "legal regime" for the "prolonged detention" of those "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people"?

Granted, this is in the context of the "terrorists" incarcerated at Gitmo. But this is a supremely slippery slope Obama is taking us down. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking we are at war with "terror" and that anyone the executive branch deems a "potential terrorist" is an enemy combatant and thus worthy of detaining. We can thank the legislation that no one in Congress who voted for it read before they passed it, the USA PATRIOT Act, for this erosion of our liberties.

Many in power easily justify detaining brown-skinned Arabs who in their own country are murderers, rapists, and very bad people. But they "cannot be prosecuted" for a reason. There is no evidence of a crime against America or its people. These people must be subject to "indefinite detention" because of something they might do in the future, according to the president who wants to "leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future presidents to keep this country safe."

Start applying this same set of standards for detention of your neighbors. Take the Homeland Security Department's "Lexicon for Domestic Terrorists" and apply that to everyone you know. If you or your friends are pro-life, pro-animal rights, pro-environment, pro-gun, anti-tax, or anti-Federal Reserve, or are a "leaderless resistor," you could be deemed a domestic terrorist, just like those who sit in cells in Gitmo. And thus you could be subject to Obama's proposed new "legal regime" and "process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

So imagine an America where you can be detained indefinitely for a crime you might commit in the future, as deemed by the same government that simultaneously violates your inalienable rights to due process of law.

Do you feel any safer now?

A full transcript of Obama's remarks is available here: http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/obama-remarks-at-national-archives/

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Eric Wala, June 01, 2009

I can't believe it. After 708 hits, no one has commented on the above essay. Face it, folks, the US is well on its way to becoming a police state and it seems that most people are just ACCEPTING it as a matter of course. Wake up! 1984 is upon us, and it's the duty of every concious American (though I doubt there are many more than 1%) to resist this tyranny.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Carol Strohbehn, June 01, 2009

My guess would be that a few of the 700+ viewers of this article read the first paragraph and had no idea what it meant. If they got past that, then it might have been the grouping of names in the second paragraph that made them turn away. Guilt? Maybe a small portion of them (and I'm hoping its small) have no idea what the Constitution is or believe the Bill of Rights is an invoice! We are fast approaching the type of government that lead to our War for Independence.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Founder
written by Michael D. Elliott, December 10, 2009

Over 4500 Hits 6 months later, not bad, but only two comments.

The err of our ways lies in the most basic fundamental understanding of rights vs. priviledges.

I find it absolutely amazing that we run around screaming about our rights all the time, when in reality almost all of these people cannot tell you;

1. Where rights come from.
2. How do to define a right.
3. Government's proper role regarding rights.


For Example, I laugh everytime I hear someone talk about the right to healthcare. There is no situation where healthcare exists in the world as a right. Healthcare can only exist three ways in the world, and all three examples are a priviledge.

1. Through charitable donation from someone else.
2. Through wealth or employment
3. Through political influence

All three require someone else to be involved and in some cases control over your life. Could healthcare exist if you were the only person on the planet? No.

What about actual rights? If you were the only person on the planet would you have the right to self defense, speak your mind, own property, develop land or business, worship, travel, build a car and drive it around, etc? Yes.

In fact the only thing that changes once you start adding more people to the equation is the need to ensure everyone's natural rights are secured through a contract with society, or what we call government. Why in the world, would we ever want to allow a machine we created through contract to decide our fate and dictate to us what we can and can't do with our own body, mind and soul? Any government that starts to criminalize the very rights it was created for to protect is a government that is in dire need to be altered or abolished. The only crime that is a justifiable crime is one where someone else's rights were infringed upon.

I can tell you, the direction this country has been headed in for a long time now, can only start to change direction, once the people start to learn the fundamental difference between rights and priviledges. Then we will start to have a fighting chance. We are in a political revolution of ideas, and if we can't win, then we will live in a world where we will have to bow down when the president walks by or we will be beaten in public as an example. Sound far fetched... we're almost there.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Mensa Proclaims the Constitution as an old document
written by Buddy Holly, December 12, 2010

I live in a very affluent area where most folks hold post college degrees. I was enjoying a cocktail at a holiday party speaking with my dear friends mother-in-law, a Mensa and self proclaimed liberated PHD graduate of Wayne State University who, when I exclaimed my shock that the TARP bill was unconstitutional beyond belief, gave the Treasury powers not granted by the constitution, told me it was probably time to update it anyway, because it was so old.

Fascinating I thought. At the time I didn't have the understanding that America was the only country in the world where the citizen was a sovereign, so maybe this is something that would have helped me englighten my conversation partner.

I'm regularly flabbargasted that people don't really care about where our standard of living, culture or freedom come from.

I think someone should publish, sovereignity for dummies. I'd give it as a Christmas Present.

• 
• +0
• 
•