Friday, November 04, 2011

Do We Live in a Police State?

Bill of Rights is No More
By Chuck Baldwin
January 5, 2012
While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.
When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.” See this report here:
Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!
At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.
This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA: [see below]
And this is Tim’s column, which rebukes journalists who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the NDAA: [see below]
Mike Adams at has also written a great piece [see below] regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “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!’”
Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.
Adams goes on to say, “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.”
Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes--and with very few exceptions--both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.
We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized--along with the Declaration of Independence--as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.
So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!
And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul.
I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.
Also See:
A Follow up Article Regarding My Interview with Lars Larson
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
December 23, 2011
I was pleasantly and respectfully interviewed by Lars on the Lars Larson show on December 13, 2011 at 6:20pm Mountain Time. (Listen to the interview) The subject of the discussion was Senate Bill 1867, entitled the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill was drafted and sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MA). SB 1867 passed the Senate and has caused much concern by many in the United States, just like other bills these two men draft and sponsor regarding Military Authorizations (e.g., SB 3081, 2010).
Military Indefinite Detention Under ‘Laws of War’
In particular, sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill provide for mandatory detention under the “laws of war” of “covered persons,” although section 1032 provides that military detention of United States citizens is not required but is discretionary. “Covered persons” to be detained under the “laws of war” are defined as:
“(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces” (emphasis added).
“Covered persons” may include United States citizens who have committed a “belligerent act.” The determination is made unilaterally by the executive branch of the federal government. There are no judicial checks to the indefinite military detention of United States citizens.
‘Belligerent Act’ Gives Broad Power to Military
A “belligerent act” is not defined in this statute. However, the term is defined in similar bills and laws, such as the Military Commission Act, which defines a “belligerent” as a person who:
“1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
This term, “belligerent,” essentially replaced the otherwise known term, “enemy combatant,” used in the Military Commission Act. “Covered persons” is a broad concept, not one of limitation or strict use. It is no wonder that constitutional scholars have commented on this type of definition and use of Military Power in our backyard as follows: "[this bill is] probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades." (See, source.)
Moreover, the evolution of these types of military authorization bills is getting broader and broader. A history of this bill’s origin and evolution has been reported before and is worth researching.
The Interview and Larson’s Description
During the interview, Larson portrays a tone of support for SB 1867 and describes the United States Constitution as not being a “suicide pact.” Larson proposes scenarios where it would be absurd to let individuals carry out a plan of attack on the United States by affording them constitutional due process. (observe: Larson may have been playing the “devil’s advocate”.)
Larson describes, for example, a situation where a person is caught with a bomb in the commencement of an act of war upon the United States. Larson suggests a conclusion, though he did not state it directly: “the United States government should have the authority to hold that person indefinitely without affording him constitutional protections of due process. Otherwise, the constitution would be providing the means for mass destruction upon the citizens.”
Larson is correct that such a person should not be allowed to continue his plan of terrorism, but he has a hard time believing that the United States Constitution provides for both the protection of the accused and the citizens of the United States and seems to think that we need SB 1867 to protect us.
A More Detailed Response to Larson’s Concerns
This following is a more detailed response to those who believe that the United States needs to have SB 1867-like power to deny due process to protect the United States from a terroristic crime or act of war.
1. Evidence is Required in All Criminal or War Acts
The constitution’s due process requirements are simply stated: (1) evidence is required to detain an accused, and (2) the evidence must be reviewed by the judicial branch.
Can the government detain a United States citizen under the “laws of war” and outside of the constitution’s protections without evidence? Is evidence required in cases where the government is imprisoning and accusing people of the most egregious acts and intents upon mankind?
-Where evidence of an act of war exists, then due process requirements will not prevent the government from protecting the United States.
-Where evidence does not exist, why is the government imprisoning United States citizens through Military “laws of war”?
Does due process really get in the way of the United States protecting itself? What hypothetical scenario can be imagined that would justify indefinite military detention of a United States citizen for a “belligerent act” where there is no evidence?
If evidence of this act of war exists, then even with due process protections in place, the government could obtain court orders to prevent the release of the accused, as well as preventing the accused from communicating with others to execute the conspiracy.
2. Due Process Protects the Accused and the United States
Due process requirements of the constitution are such that a court can order the unconditional detention of an accused where circumstances require. The court’s power is correlative to the facts/evidence. Where there is evidence of the kind Larson proposes, a court would unconditionally detain the accused given the potential mass threat to society.
In addition, the court would use its powers of equity to establish the conditions of the accused’s detention to prevent irreparable harm. Since the court’s equity power is commensurate with the evidence, the court would ensure the proper detention of the accused.
Furthermore, another protection for the United States exists. The government could appeal any court order it feels did not sufficiently protect the safety of the United States. In the facts Larson describes, it is unimaginable that the trial court and all appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, would order conditions of release or detention that would jeopardize the safety of the United States.
3. The “X” Factor of the Accomplice Attorney
To Larson, however, there is a loophole in the due process protection. Assuming the court unconditionally detained the accused and the government had sufficient evidence to secure his detention, Larson describes one other possibility of mass destruction: namely, an accomplice attorney.
Since the constitution guarantees the right of the accused to an attorney, Larson suggests that the accused would use his attorney and the attorney could facilitate carrying out the conspiracy. The implication is that the accused would need to be detained without the ability to communicate with anyone, including his attorney.
This leads us to the next point in the discussion.
4. Constitution Provides for Treason Charges, as Well as Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Larson’s act-of-war description falls under the definition of “treason”. Likewise, it falls under the category of “public safety may require [the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus].”
Therefore, the Executive branch would be able to charge the citizen with Treason given the evidence of the overt act; and Congress or the Courts (and perhaps the President) would be able to suspend Habeas Corpus as to those accused since “the public Safety [requires] it.”
Where the government charges the accused with an act of war against the United States (i.e. Treason); where there is sufficient evidence for the court’s consideration; and where Habeas Corpus is suspended, the government’s power to prevent the accused from further executing the conspiracy sufficiently exists.
And of course, laws can be passed by Congress to carry out these duties and functions where they are “necessary and proper”.
The Constitution adequately provides for the protection of the accused’s rights as well as the public safety.
We cannot ignore the United States Constitution in the name of “safety”. It provides for our safety. However, if there is a flaw in the United States Constitution relative to these matters of “terror”, then the people should amend it. We tread on dangerous ground where power is assumed. This was one of the strongest warnings the founding fathers gave us.
Yet, too many Americans are willing to permit the federal government to assume these powers of military authority within the United States against our citizens. Congress’ attempt to place the United States under the “law of war” and defining “acts of war” against the United States in ways that do not comport to the United States Constitution are unnecessary; and worse, they are dangerous.
The “war on terror” began in 2001 without a declaration of war or letter of Marque or Reprisal. Congressman Henry Hyde told the President to use his discretion in the war. Now, Congress is providing the President with a law of discretion against United States citizens with no oversight of the judicial branch.
The federal government has been exacerbating our relationships with foreign countries, and now, they are bringing war to our backyard. They continually broaden power, definitions, applications, and time-frames. They propose that the only way they can fight the “war on terror” is for United States citizens to continually give up more liberty and constitutional protections.
Can we really trust these people with this much power? Is our safety protected only by consolidating power into one branch of government? Can we really continue down this road?
Subscribe to Timothy Baldwin’s articles by going to Order Timothy and Chuck Baldwin’s recently released book, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission by going to
Timothy Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida) and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.
Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and Political Discussions for People of States–all of which are available for purchase through Liberty Defense League. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political science articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague
Also See:
A Critque of Montana’s Daily Inter Lake Article on SB 1867
by Timothy Baldwin, J.D.
On December 30, 2011
The article I read in the Kalispell’s Daily Inter Lake entitled, “A False Alarm Over S. 1867”, posted on December 7, 2011, strikes me as a display of cheap journalism at best. Its analysis and conclusions fall short in many ways. Unfortunately, its fallacies concern a bill very important to our country and constitution—Senate Bill 1867.
I have written a separate article on this subject as well and have gone into some detail about the constitutional significance of this bill. This article should be read in conjunction with this one. See my article.
In particular, there are four very glaring fallacies in the Daily Inter Lake article. Consider them and my responses in order.
Fallacy #1. The article presumes we can trust our government with arbitrary “laws of war” power against U.S. Citizens.
The article states,
“[W]e admit we get a little panicky when bipartisanship breaks out in D.C…. [but] there is a virtually nil chance that you or your neighbors will be swept up off the street and locked up in ‘indefinite detention’ unless you are indeed engaged in war against the United States…Moreover, we would encourage everyone to think about the oath of office that many federal officials take, including all members of Congress.”
According to this Daily Inter Lake article, we may have reason to get “panicky” “when bipartisanship breaks out in D.C.”. This is a horrible start of logic display. Is that really the standard by which we judge bills? I thought it was the constitution.
The article assures us that we and our neighbors will not be swept off the streets and locked up “unless you are indeed engaged in war against the United States” (emphasis added). The basis for this assertion, however, is not reconciled with the text of the bill, the targets of which include those the military deems “belligerent”.
Moreover, using the word “war” does nothing to invoke war powers of the federal government. Despite the fact that the constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress to define the scope and enemy of the war, there is no definition of what “engaged in war against the United States” means. Is this like the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty”? Does it include actions that the government deems threatening to its own power structure?
The reality is, “belligerent” actions do not include only acts of war as the article presupposes. It includes any “hostilities” towards the United States regardless of “terrorist connections”. Of course, these terms are unilaterally defined by only one branch of government with no checks from the judiciary. In short, the article presumes we should trust the President with this kind of discretionary law-of-war power.
The article completely ignores, as well, the explicit rules in the United States Constitution regarding domestic enemies; namely, the powers regarding treason and suspension of habeas corpus to provide for the public safety. (See my article.)
The article significantly strays from our federal republic’s foundation, which was premised upon the mistrust of people in political power. The Federalist Paper writers repeated this principle as a fundamental basis for limiting the federal government, especially the branch holding power to destroy life.
Fallacy #2. The article states the bill exempts US Citizens from being detained and prosecuted under laws of war.
The article states,
“if the thousands of people forwarding scary emails about the bill would stop and actually investigate, they would find out that in large measure U.S. citizens are exempted from the law” (emphasis added).
If Daily Inter Lake “would stop and actually investigate, they would find” that their position is incorrect. The bill does not require detainment of US Citizens, but instead it gives discretionary power for US Citizens to be detained under laws of war. Thus, the plausibility of serious abuse is still real.
Where power is discretionary, it is vested and complete. Defying all sense of logic, the Daily Inter Lake finds comfort in that. Yet, what government has ever declined to use discretionary power to its fullest degree? The Daily Inter Lake article shows ignorance of human nature, history, and political science.
Fallacy #3. The articles states “good Americans” would never be targets; and targets will only be actual “terrorists” who engage in acts of war against the United States.
The article states,
“(1) [S]omebody may be locked up, but we are confident that it won’t be good Americans… (2) And Section 1031, which relates to the use of the armed forces to detain covered people…has a very narrow purpose of describing detention ‘under the law of war’ of people who either participated in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or is a member or “substantial supporter” of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (numbers added).
As to part (1) of the statement:
Why should we be so confident, as the article suggests, that only “bad Americans” will be targets of this power? Who defines “good” and “bad” here? And why is the judicial branch of government excluded from checking and balancing this determination?
After all, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has expressly named the following kind of people as potential “homegrown terrorists”: supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr; those who oppose the “collection of federal income tax”; those who believe in the fundamental importance of the second amendment—meaning, State militias; those “who question the legitimacy of the federal government”; those who oppose illegal immigration. (See source here.). The SPLC, of course, is the Department of Homeland Security’s lap dog and feeds “expert” information about “terrorism” through their Fusion Centers. We have seen their trickery even here in Kalispell.
To the SPLC, these people are not “good Americans”; they are potential terrorists. Given that the SPLC is closely connected with the executive branch of the federal government, why should we not be concerned?
As to part (2) of the statement:
The Daily Inter Lake article fails to mention the broadest part of the bill’s definition of “covered persons” who are subject to this discretionary “law of war” power. The bill includes “belligerents” as “covered persons”, which is not defined in the statute.
Looking at other statutes (i.e. Military Commissions Act), the word “belligerents” is a much broader term than all of the others used to define “covered persons” and does not necessitate “acts of war” against the United States. A “belligerent” may have nothing to do with the “narrow purpose” under the laws of war.
Just the opposite, instead of being a “narrow purpose”, the bill broadly expands the use of the “law of war” power against US Citizens the military deems “belligerent”. Why the Daily Inter Lake would exempt this law of war application is very peculiar since the applicable provisions of the bill “are only two small sections”.
Fallacy #4. The article states, that there are only 2 provisions in the over 900 page bill assures us we are safe from arbitrary power against “good” Americans.
The article states,
“Remember, this is a gargantuan 926-page bill, but there are only two small sections that have people up in arms, or nearly so. But it is those two exact sections that provide the evidence that there is nothing to panic about…Seems pretty plain to us” (emphasis added).
The shortness of the provisions in comparison to the overall bill has no basis in logic. What does it matter how short the provisions are? The bill could have been as short as, “the President has the power to arrest and detain any person he deems to be a ‘belligerent’.” Short and sweet. So what? Should that make us less concerned?
Moreover, since it is so short, one would think that the obvious errors in interpreting the bill would not have been made by the Daily Inter Lake.
It is disappointing to see our city’s daily paper spread this kind of shallow thinking. And it is very difficult to take this kind of journalism seriously when they spread this misinformation and illogic fallacies, especially on a subject so important.
Also See:
R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011
Mike Adams
Sunday, January 01, 2012
(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 (
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 (
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 (
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." (
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:
Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill:
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.
Also See:
Obama to fill Gitmo with Americans as NDAA law passes
Mike Adams
Thursday, December 15, 2011
(NaturalNews) The right to due process in America is coming to a sudden end as traitorous members of Congress have now passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which gives the U.S. military the power to arrest, detain, interrogate, torture and murder U.S. citizens inside the United States, with no due process.
President Obama, who had previously said he would oppose the bill (because he claimed he already had the power to kill Americans outside the law), now says he will support it and presumably sign it. The White House even issued a statement, which is one of the most astonishing and Big Brother-ish examples of doublespeak yet observed coming out of the Obama administration:
"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto..."
Of course, by "protect the American people" what they really mean is that they will shred the Peoples' protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent." (
Obama's Christmas gift to Americans: Complete nullification of the Bill of Rights
Under the NDAA:
• You may be arrested and indefinitely detained merely for being "suspected" of any involvement whatsoever with "terrorism" -- a term that can be twisted to mean almost anything, including protesting against animal testing laboratories or chaining yourself to a tree as an environmental protester.
• You no longer have a right to legal representation.
• You can be held for life without ever being charged for any crime.
• You no longer have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
• You can be murdered by the government -- legally! -- without ever being charged with a crime.
• The government does not have to present ANY evidence against you to take all these actions. The government merely has to assert that you are "suspected" of being involved in "terrorism." Such suspicion, of course, could be dreamed up against anyone! Political opponents, Free Speech proponents, protesters, dissenters... anyone at all.
283 traitorous, criminal members of the House voted YES
The complete list of the traitorous, criminal members of the House who voted YES on this bill -- all of which must now be arrested and prosecuted under the laws of the U.S. Constitution -- is available here:
Read these names well, because they will go down in history as the seditious elitists who betrayed the American people in their most desperate hour, unleashing total police state tyranny against the innocent.
That these people in Congress somehow think they have the right to strip away the very freedoms GUARNTEED the American people under the U.S. Constitution is an outright violation of their own sworn oaths to protect that Constitution. It is also a deeply spiritual violation of natural law and a fundamental betrayal of the very principles upon which this country is founded.
We warned ya, and you didn't listen
Here at NaturalNews -- and even more so at places like -- we warned you about this very thing, sometimes screaming at the top of our lungs that if we didn't reverse the Patriot Act and stop the irrational and unrelenting "war on terror," we would all end up slaves under a system of total government tyranny.
The public laughed and mocked us. "That will never happen in America. We're a free country," they insisted. The trolls accused us of fear mongering. The mainstream media said we were crazy.
And now, here we are, with the indefinite military detention bill passed by both houses, and the White House saying it will sign it, granting the military the "administrative right" to kidnap you in the middle of the night, steal you away from your family, throw you in a secret military prison and hold you there for the rest of your life without ever being charged with a crime or given legal representation of any kind.
The time for denial is over, friends. We warned ya! Over and over again, screaming for anyone intelligent enough who might listen, we warned about the Patriot Act, the Bush-era "war on terror," the government's false flag 9/11 attack, the secret military prisons, and the criminality of key people within the Obama administration such as Eric Holder who ran Operation Fast & Furious.
We warned you, and you didn't listen. So now here we are on the verge of the Bill of Rights being nullified by Congress and President Obama, and most of America remains hopelessly asleep at the wheel, having no idea what they have allowed to unfold right in front of them. Tyranny is like a serpent that slithers into your tent, silently and maliciously, coiling around your torso and neck while you sleep. By the time you notice what's happen and try to scream, it's already too late.
People will start to "disappear" across America
So now, thanks to the NDAA and the Obama administration -- which has proven to be a far greater threat to our liberties than even the Bush administration was -- people in America will simply "disappear" in the middle of the night, as covert military teams kidnap them, take them away, and torture them -- all with the full approval of President Obama who once promised he would close Gitmo.
Close it? Heck, this guy's planning on filling Gitmo with Americans!
Every President, when sworn into office, swears upon a bible that they will protect and defend the United States Constitution. The NDDA law is a gross violation of that oath to God, and that makes the passage of this act not merely a betrayal of the American people, but a spiritual betrayal to a higher power. And that's something these members of Congress who voted for this bill will have to answer for.
Their souls are marked for eternity. This is a betrayal of natural law and spiritual truth. It is also, of course, a gross violation of U.S. law and the Constitution itself. That the passage of such a law is even contemplated by members of Congress is, all by itself, such a malicious violation against America that if a law with the exact same wording were proposed in 1789, those who voted for such a law would have been shot on sight and memorialized as criminal traitors to the United States of America.
It only took 222 years for the American people to forget what freedom means, apparently. And now, Americans are so asleep, drugged up and ill-informed that they won't even speak out against the very government that's coiling around their necks and strangling them to death.
"It turns out that destroying the American democratic republic was easy to accomplish," writes David Seaman from ( "Simply get the three major cable news networks to blather on about useless bull**** for a few days, while legislators meet in secret behind closed doors to rush through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), and its evil twin sister, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which is a clever name for an Internet censorship bill straight out of an Orwellian nightmare."
Sources for this story include: (must read)

Obama Announces he can imprison anyone he chooses…IF he chooses to do so
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Sher Zieve
Monday, January 2, 2012
Today’s column will be short and to the point. It has finally arrived, folks. I’d hoped I was wrong about it but, tragically and chillingly I was not. Obama has just announced—in his own words—that he can detain (imprison) anyone he wants with the new unconstitutional NDAA bill passed by Congress and signed by the now self-proclaimed Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Note: As usual, the Marxist-media doesn’t care and is, instead, jubilant that Dear Leader Obama has finally done away with that pesky Constitution.
In a statement published 31 December on his White House site, Mr. Obama states: “Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” He goes on in the statement: “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Note: Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) advised in the below YouTube video that the White House and Barack Obama DEMANDED the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents. So, the collaborative Congress gave him the dictatorial powers he has wanted since he usurped the Office of POTUS.
The now formal Dictator of the USA Obama also disingenuously stated: “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground [yes, it does] and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.”
“Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Note: But, it does.
“My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” Note: No, it did not. In fact, per Democrat Senator Carl Levin, just the opposite occurred—as Obama demanded protections for US citizens and legal residents be removed before he would sign the bill! Obama continues with: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Translation: “I may choose to be a beneficent dictator, if I wish to do so.”
“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values [they are not ’traditions and values’ they are US law] as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” Note: This is another abject ObamaLie. The new revised NDAA bill, which Obama demanded, effectively renders the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights—and the US Constitution, itself—null and void.
We have now reached the end of the road as a free country. As never before, only two choices now remain We-the-People: “If we refuse to rise up and fight, we’ll be forced to lie down and die.”
“And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable”—Isaiah 3:5
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:Proof Obama Will Sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Indefinite Detention Law in a Few Days and that the removal of protection for US citizens and legal residents was DEMANDED by the White House:
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
Sher can be reached at
The Constitution Is Dead: The Gradual Transition towards an Orwellian Police State
Americans denied their First and Third amendment rights...
By Devon DB
Global Research, December 3, 2011
Many in America still believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that politicians, both Republican and Democrat alike, still hold that view and ensure that any and all legislation passed does not violate it. However, in today’s America, the Constitution is effectively a null and void document, nothing more than a symbol politicians pay lip service to.
The destruction of the Constitution began soon after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress. In the heat of the moment it seemed as if the legislation was meant to protect us from terrorism, however it was later revealed that certain provisions blatantly violated the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. [1] Interestingly enough, however, this didn’t stop the Senate from to extending the Patriot Act earlier this year [2]. In doing this, the government revealed just how much they respect the Constitution.
The next unconstitutional act to take place was under President Obama. Despite his “hope and change” rhetoric during the campaign, the only thing Obama changed was to further erode the Constitution and the power of checks and balances in government. Obama argued that the UN mandate gave him the right to bombard Libya, however the mandate has nothing to do with the fact that such an action was unconstitutional [3] as the power to declare war in held solely by Congress, not to mention the fact that it violated the War Powers Act. In carrying out this action, Obama did even more to expand the imperial presidency and showed his blatant hypocrisy as in 2007 he clearly stated that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” [4] (emphasis added) However, in later months he would take this disregard of the Constitution to the extreme.
Just two months ago, Obama authorized the assassination of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. While al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda, he was still a US citizen at the time of his death [5] and thus he still had rights as a citizen, specifically the right due process. This never occurred with al-Awlaki. Due to al-Awlaki’s assassination, it sets a legal precedent which allows the current and future Presidents to assassinate US citizens and withhold damning evidence- if there even is any- from the public under the guise of “national security.”
Today, we see due to the brutal crackdown of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Oakland, New York, and most recently Los Angeles, that Americans are being denied their First and Third amendment rights. Mayors are sending the message that if one decides to pose a serious challenge to the status quo, they will be violently crushed.
The Constitution is dead and with it the beliefs and ideals America was founded on have also passed away. The most terrifying occurrence, however, is that Americans are seeing their freedoms eroded are still in denial that a police state is slowly, but surely on its way.
"Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that." — Ron Paul
Supreme Court ruling foreshadows police state
Source: Statesman Journal - June 29th, 2004
Welcome to Gulag Amerika, home of the shredded Constitution.
On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizens no longer have the right to remain silent when questioned by the police. That “the state's interest in protecting police and investigating crime” takes priority over the constitutional rights of citizens.
That's a horrifyingly broad umbrella.
Bye-bye Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
What happens:
- When the state decides that it's safer for cops to eliminate that pesky Second Amendment? An unarmed populace is safer for police in a police state.
- When the state feels they can cut the military budget by quartering troops in private homes? What Third Amendment?
- When the First Amendment becomes inconvenient?
Talk about the proverbial slippery slope.
You have the right to remain silent, unless the state wants you to talk. That's what this ruling says, unconstitutionally altering the Bill of Rights in the extreme.
I thought it was conservatives who railed against “legislating from the bench.” That went the way of their respect for states' rights, I guess.
And we thought the PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym having nothing to do with patriotism, you know) was bad!
The iron boot heel of a police state is upon us.
Webmasters note: I am scared as an American. I love America, but I am afraid of my own government. I am afraid for my children. The blatant injustices and evils of the U.S. government are shocking to me as a Christian. Though God has not given me the spirit of fear, my government has. I liken America's present course to that of the Titanic before it met utter destruction in the icy waters of the north Atlantic. Everybody thought all was well, but it wasn't. There were only half the necessary lifeboats available if a disaster occurred...and it did! None of the passengers had looked into such matters of safety before boarding the ship...fools! You'd think someone would have asked about the number and capacity of the lifeboats.
America as a nation is headed for disaster! We are on a crash course with total destruction. With scientists playing God in transgenics, cloning and such...a biological nightmare has just begun. The abominable Federal Reserve System has bankrupt this nation, and we allow it to continue. Murderous abortion continues. The trillion dollar drug scam continues. It's called "corporate responsibility" folks! We are responsible as Americans for everything that our government does in our name with our money. We are all responsible for abortion unless we have done something to try to stop it and speak out against it. We are all responsible for the woes of the U.S. government. Just as the Germans were to blame for Hitler, so are we to blame for tolerating the wickedness of our own government. The complacent American people will all give account to God. All those who sat idle and did nothing to stand up against the evil will be tried as accomplices. If you know something evil is happening and you do nothing, then you are guilty of the crime also. People have gone to prison because they protected someone who committed a crime.
The average American knowingly looks to the news media to brainwash them with excuses to do nothing. Most people don't want to be on the wrong side of the crowd (the herd mentality). I've met so many people that don't want to think for even a second that their own government could have conspired to carry out the evils of 911. Unless your a complete idiot, don't care or are just plain cannot deny that something very fishy happened on 911 (and the government's been lying to us). Why did that third building fall down? You know, World Trade building number seven a block north (that no plane ever crashed into). Look for yourself,
We are increasingly losing our freedoms as U.S. citizens, unaware of the deathly iceberg which soon lies ahead. Our chip will sink, mark my words. It is inevitable. The stock market is a big mirage of false value. Our money is worthless. Our government is in serious debt. Sodomy is exploding across the nation and the Sunday, June 27th, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times proudly announced that 9% of all high school students in Chicago now claim to be GAY! Where will this debauchery lead? How low can we go as a nation before all integrity is gone? In case you don't already know, a nation's integrity follows it's morals. As wickedness increases, so does apathy and the takeover of our government by the devil. Most people don't care anymore, they are indifferent. Are you indifferent? Do you care? Do you care enough to get MAD (Make A Difference)? I do. God cares. Many people still do care, but not enough are doing anything about it. Get up off your blessed assurance and do something for God! Do something to save your nation! Do something to warn the naive and the simple! Don't be a fool on the Titanic!!!
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-02-27
[Left: Bukovsky and Belien]
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.
Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.
According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.
PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?
VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.
PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.
VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.
PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?
VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.
PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.
VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”
The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.
According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.
In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.
In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”
This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?
Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.
It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.
If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.
Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.
It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.
Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project.
None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.
I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.
This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.
We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.