“When they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape...(1 Thessalonians 5:3).
I received this email I’d like to share with you. You know we are in trouble, you just don’t know how much:
As the government appears to be clamping down on the rights of citizens and appears to be gearing up for a "hostilities against the United States" mentality, I urge you to look back at the best historical example of a regime doing to very same thing.. Nazi Germany.
The first step must always be to consolidate power and eliminate opposition, two things Hitler did exceptionally well. "Fear" was the key component to keeping Germans loyal and "in line." Remember how Hitler required the Gestapo and the SS to pledge loyalty directly to him.. not Germany.
Are we headed for a police state? We will once the Supreme Court hands over gun rights to the government. (Ginsburg has already made it known that "when Obama is re-elected and appoints another liberal justice or two," the Court would like another chance to hear a 2nd Amendment case so they can "get it right this time." -- Something to think about.
R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789-2011, by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 1, 2012 http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
Was there Something Similar to the Patriot Act and the NDAA Under Nazi Germany, The Daily Paul, January 2, 2012 http://www.dailypaul.com/198612/was-there-something-similar-to-ndaa-under-nazi-germany
R.I.P. Bill of Rights: 1789-2011
by Mike Adams, Jan. 1, 2012 http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
(NaturalNews) One of the most extraordinary documents in human history -- the Bill of Rights -- has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the "legal" right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming "impeachment!"
Why the Bill of Rights matters
While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a "First Amendment" to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.
This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780's, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provide additional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.
Of course, today's runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA's illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government's hijacking of websites it claims are linking to "copyright infringement" hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government's demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -- the "commerce clause."
Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your "right" to due process is null and void.
Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!
"President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Obama's signing statement means nothing
Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded..."
Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the "the flexibility on which our safety depends" means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he "wishes" to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.
"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/content/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law)
What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.
United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law
Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war:
"...the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war" says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/content/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law)
In 1789, today's NDAA law would have been called "treasonous," and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.
In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.
This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).
Origins of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.
Mason was a strong advocate of not just states' rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason)
SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm)
Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
By any honest measure, today's U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to "reform, alter or abolish it," to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose -- to protect the rights of the People.
Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.
Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America's final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.
Read the language analysis of WHY and HOW the NDAA applies to American citizens
Many people have been fooled by the obfuscated language of the bill, and they wrongfully believe the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. They have been hoodwinked!
In this follow-up article, I parse the language of the NDAA and explain, in plain language, how and why the NDAA does apply to American citizens:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596
Make no mistake, folks: The U.S. government has just declared all Americans to be "enemy combatants," and that the USA is now a "battleground" over which the military has total control. We are now a nation living under military dictatorship, whether you realize it or not.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html#ixzz1qcrisFfa
Was there Something Similar to the Patriot Act & NDAA Under Nazi Germany
The Daily Paul, January 2, 2012 http://www.dailypaul.com/198612/was-there-something-similar-to-ndaa-under-nazi-germany
Question Posed: Were there were any laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA during Nazi Germany?
(People dont want to see any parallels because they are somehow deluded that our American government would never do such bad things)
First, let's note the similarity in 9/11 and the Reichstag Fire (Jeff, remember I made this point at the Washington meeting?) Both were the incidents that led to an oppressive regime with respect to civil liberties. 9/11 wasn't orchestrated by the government, but most believe the burning of the Reichstag was planned and executed by orders of Hitler himself (see "The Nazis: Lessons from History"; I got you this DVD as well; hopefully I'll get it to you on Tuesday). Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Almost immediately after that, on February 27, there was the burning of the Reichstag.
If the goal is political control, then nothing sets the stage like a good national disaster.
So, under the rise of Hitler, he began to consolidate his power and control over the German people with the Reichstag Fire. First came The Reichstag Fire Decree and then the Enabling Act of 1933. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnYEmQd7_uE&feature=related (except replace the last visual with Obama instead of Bush)
Answer #1: The Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933
The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of 27 February 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
Answer #2: The Enabling Act of 1933
Hindenburg: "This completely overrides the Constitution. It puts you in charge."
Hitler: "These are troubled times."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5HtPYv1FQ (this 8.5 minute clip is a dramatization of the enacting of the Enabling Act; of the pressures, false flag, and spin involved)
March 23, 1933. The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed by Germany's Reichstag and signed by President Paul von Hindenburg on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step, after the Reichstag Fire Decree, through which Chancellor Adolf Hitler legally obtained plenary powers and established his dictatorship. The Act granted the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag for four years.
Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. Unprecedentedly, these laws could even deviate from the Constitution. The Act effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics, though the existence of the body, alongside that of the Reichsrat and of the office of President were protected under the Act. Together with the Reichstag Fire Decree, it transformed Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship.
The Act also effectively removed Presidential oversight, as Hindenburg's representative had stated that the aged president was withdrawing from day-to-day affairs of government and that presidential collaboration on the laws decreed as a result of the Enabling Act would not be required.
During the negotiations between the government and the Centre Party, it was agreed that the government should inform the Reichstag parties of legislative measures passed under the Enabling Act. For this purpose, a working committee was set up, chaired by Hitler and the Centre's chairman Kaas. However, this committee met only three times without any major impact and rapidly became a dead letter.
Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself.
The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that proscribed the founding of political parties. By this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: "I set for myself one aim ... to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!"
Answer #3: There was a law that allowed the police to arrest people into "protective custody", which required no charge or trial. I don't recall that law. However, "protective custody" was typically used for political undesirables, people without papers, people "turned in" by their neighbors, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, etc.
Answer #4: According to Wikipedia Himmler became the Chief of the German Police, and all German law enforcement more or less became under the prevue under a Gestapo sub-organization known as the Kriminalpolizei (Kripo).
Lines of authority became very confusing as the Nazi's bureaucracies multiplied and completed with one another as well as the pre-Hitler German agencies. All these agencies developed into a polyanrchy, the opposite of anarchy. Lots of Machiavelli infighting and jockeying for power to obtain favor form Hitler for funding and equipment. If things were not so serious today, it would be funny to watch Homeland security, the FBI, the IRS, and the Department of Education fighting each other.
It seems Hitler encouraged this, as it made any contender like Gobbels, Himmler, and Goring spend time jostling and fighting each other instead of seeking his position as supreme dictator.
One only has to look at the militarizing of local LE's by the Federal Government. All those shiny toys such as armored cars, body armor, and full auto M4's (Paid by us tax payers. of course,)are as meant to seduce LE's to betray their local and state laws and follow the Military, whose CIC is the President. That's why Sheriffs may be the last line of defense states have to enforce their sovereignty as guaranteed by the Constitution. Kind of a tough job for one man to stand up against the Feds to protect their jurisdiction, but some have bravely done so in the past. But now, the NDAA provision can and will over-ride them.
That's what makes all the executive power the President has amassed recently (Well, its be going on since forever, but become more blatant recently) Bush's reign torn down some important checks and balances, and Cheney treated is office a VP as a "Forth branch of office" much like what Himmler did with his Gestapo and SD. Add Obama executing an American overseas without trial and bombing Libya without Congressional say-so, and you have the makings of a Caesar all ready to go.
Answer #5: Aushwitz, Treblinka, Dachau......
How It All Started: January 30, 1933. British Movietone News. In January 1933, the ousted Chancellor, Franz von Papen, tried to get his revenge on the current Chancellor, General Kurt von Schleicher, by working toward the General's downfall, through forming an intrigue with the President Paul von Hindenburg's closest supporters and Alfred Hugenburg, media mogul and chairman of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP). Also involved were Hjalmer Schacht, Fritz Thyssen and other leading German businessmen. They financially supported the Nazi Party, which had been brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the cost of heavy campaigning. The businessmen wrote letters to Hindenburg, urging him to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties" which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people."
Finally, the president reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler Chancellor of a coalition government formed by the NSDAP and DNVP. However, the Nazis were to be contained by a framework of conservative cabinet ministers, most notably by Papen as Vice-Chancellor and by Hugenberg as Minister of the Economy. The only other Nazi besides Hitler to get a portfolio was Wilhelm Frick, who was given the relatively powerless interior ministry (in Germany at the time, most powers wielded by the interior minister in other countries were held by the interior ministers of the states). As a concession to the Nazis, Göring was named minister without portfolio. While Papen intended to use Hitler as a figurehead, the Nazis gained key positions.
On the morning of 30 January 1933, in Hindenburg's office, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and simple ceremony. His first speech as Chancellor took place on 10 February. The Nazis' seizure of power subsequently became known as the Machtergreifung. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYYcN6pwFMk&feature=relmfu
No comments:
Post a Comment