Senator McCain: Reagan Aside, Libya Is Not America's War

After the presidential address attempting to "sell" the American people on yet another U.S. involvement in a foreign civil war, of course, there were analyses set forth by members of both political parties, the talking heads on the major cable news networks and others.

One from the Senator from Arizona, John McCain, defending again another foreign war sacrificing U.S. troops in the guise of protecting the civilian rebels for the "greater good" in Libya.

Reagan and his Reaganomics aside, which has literally at this point due to decisions made during that administration has cost a great many Arizonans their lives, property and livelihoods due to his first blanket amnesty move, and widening the interstate highways from Nogales to Flagstaff back in the 80's to facilitate the exchange of goods and people while leaving Arizona's open desert and borders for the most part open and unsecured - what has been left out is that the president of this country has no inherent authority whatsoever to engage American troops in any defense or intervention of any other nation other than our own.

Diplomacy and trade sanctions, yes. Direct troop involvement, no. Whether through NATO or presidential fiat.

At least without the consent of America's elected representatives, who also were to be cognizant of the strict provisions for defensive wars under which this country also was founded. Yet our standing army and its ranks continue to expand due to these serial foreign engagements, while our own borders are opened and for the most part unsecured?

Although, of course, there has been no true representatives in this country by legislative district for literally decades due also to the globalist progressives and their agendas low these many years, and some rather questionable Supreme Court rulings affording voice, funding and votes to global and national corporate entities even in local elections, many for the most part based outside the U.S.

Libya is not our war. And putting another British Parliament and puppet government in Libya or Iraq, for that matter, does not serve the interests of this country but is merely sacrificing our blood and treasure on behalf of global socialism, not even "democracy."

Remember, those founders did not believe in democracy - a form of government in their writings they predicted was doomed to fail and was nothing more than "gang rule."

Thus, those first ten amendments were provided in order to protect the citizenry and their lives and wallets.

And interesting that while incarcerated and many times plea bargained civilian prisoners in America's federal prisons have been progressively denied their "voting" rights and freedom in the piling on of charges many times, some even for lower level felony offenses, and the dissenters in the United States who continue to protest this illegal and unconstitutional foreign policy are being arrested on domestic shores, our leadership once again fails to truly see the forest for the trees and what is truly going on in their own backyard.

State Department Writer Dishes Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury

In furtherance in just how far and how fast this agenda of negating the U.S. Constitution and those protections which were written in stone within it by our founding fathers in order that true "justice" and the "will" of the people, and not the state, would prevail in both criminal and civil matters in this country as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," a writer apparently employed or promoted by the U.S. State Department on the website www.america.gov in the "International" Department is apparently of the belief that America's trial by jury provisions are not as "good" as those from the "small country" he was or is from, the current country of residence, however, was omitted.

At least according to an article published on the website in July.

Whether this gentleman is now a naturalized U.S. citizen it is unclear.

Given that each and every naturalized citizen in this country, and federal and state employee is bound by an oath of office to "defend and protect" the Constitution of the United States, if this gentleman is a naturalized citizen and now an employee of our State Department or freelancer paid for his articles on a governmental site, it would appear that his citizenship classes were somewhat deficient in defining the hierachy and reason that the founders demanded such provisions be included due to the abuses which they had suffered under "sovereign" judgements as "subjects" rather than "owners" of their government.

Or the State Department actually is promoting federalism and "sovereighny" that would shock and apall those founders as diametricaly opposed to the entire framework of our government.

With federal and Supreme Court justices now schooled primarily in British based judicial determinations which have now "regressively" occurred in this country, such as that heinous Kelo decision which was no more than the sovereign "taking" and according "land and titles" from one private entity and giving it to another "sovereign subject and developerr" for no true "public purpose" whatsoever as the founders intended to protect their lands and homes, and the now bucketload of political decisions that have come down the pike at each and every level within the past five decades giving our government much more authority and power than it was ever intended to have over the "rights" and "freedoms" of Americans, I just wonder where this writer actually grew up, how old he is, and just where he was educated. Britain?

I wonder if he is aware of the term "Res Ipsa Loquitor" and also the basis and the common law upon which our Constitution was actually based, with the exception of the added provisons which the founders included within our Bill of Rights in order that the citizens in this country would not suffer the stripping of their homes, land, property and dignity which had occurred in Britain and from which they fled as victims of just such beliefs - that there are "classes" of citizens, with some with "blood royal," and others not so blessed and thus not as "worthy" of enjoying the fruits of their labor without paying large and ever increasing alms to the sovereign - be it human or "parlimentary.".

That the government's will is not above that of the "natural" and God given rights of the people. A system based on "innocent until proven guilty" by a unanimous decision - and in which even the "fact" basis and Constitutionality of the law under which an accused is tried is even subject to jury review and determination as to its applicability in each and every INDIVIDUAL case before them.

Not, as judges are bound within the unregulated judicial branch by their own court rules which have placed more than few judges in an untenable position and forced more and more to use "politically" rendered decisions instead of honoring their oath of office, or be canned by the "political organization" of which they are affiliated by Administration, and which are in any event "subjective" judicial opinions, and personal biases not the "tribunals" they were intended to be, except upon Supreme Court reviews, which have been granting themselves and the lower courts "rights of refusal, to now even hear citizen brought complaints outside Constitutional provison.

Especially judges paid by the public taxpayers although appointed by Congress and the President without any real "check and balance" now more and more clearly looking out for their own economic self-interest or political careers, which impartial juries are not so "politically" motivated to do but actually hear the evidence - at least not in prior generations when cases were not "tried" in the media as they are today also due to our sensationalized media seeking ad revenues and dollars, rather than facts with political agendas all their own.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the U.S. has more lawyers in this country than all of Europe combined, our judicial system has become nothing more than a litigation mill and the idea is to draw cases out and not serve in the interests of justice of those of the accused and the public.

If most cases are plea bargarined, as this writer also so believes at this point in our history, then it is usually because "the State" doesn't have enough evidence to actually try the cases, or even the law or statute under which he is "accused" is blatantly unconstitutional (since now few state or federal legislators are serving their function as the "check' on constitutionality initially) so many truly innocent Americans have been deprived of their day in court and justice or effective renderings by the court on some of those bogus laws and statutes - by America's now truly out of balance legal system based not on discovering truth and based on evidence but even with civil trials, not to mention criminal trials, increasingly going on for years due to delays and legal shenanigans most of all.

You can read the text for yourself. This is what Washington is either hiring or promoting and yet issuing "right wing extremist" memorandums and instituting "terrorism" task forces against the citizenry, and wonders apparently why the people are not at all happy with the "sovereign" now federal and their state governments?

I wonder if this writer is or was previously a lawyer by profession, and if so, just where he got his legal education? Because it is clear he does not truly understand the intended American judicial system as separate and distinct from the rest of the world's and was set forth purposely as one in which "juries of peers" were the best insurance against tyranny.

And just where his former "small country" is actually located.

Because it would appear he was either "schooled" in a British or "government as sovereign" collegiate education whether at this point in this country here or his former homeland makes no real difference. Since it does appear that the Bar Association also must have an "International" mindset in its teaching curriculum at this juncture and also agenda due to the globalists now heading most of this country's major universities, especially those with law schools.

And the American taxpayers are paying this writer's salary or commissions on articles, to undermine the very fabric of our government itself?

Written on the publicly and taxpayer funded website of www.america.gov , it appears that the only "legal" requirement now that the State Department has set forth is that these political writers set forth a disclosure that "the opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. government."

Excuse me? Then just what purpose does such an article actually serve, other than to employ foreign writers without any historical backgrounds or knowledge on American govenment and politics?

Since that would be another method of "splitting hairs" with governmental positions promoting what is nothing more than treason on the U.S. Constitution, while the "Globalists" rather than American Department Heads can keep their hands clean using "foreigners" now to do their dirty work and spread their propaganda that are at this point due to yet another global recession due our intermingled economies, getting fed up also with the globalists and their "world socialism" movement in some of their home countries, and would like also a government as this once great nation had for over 100 years prior to the start of the last century, at least.

One "of the people, by the people, for the people" of their respective countries, whose individual interests and whose citizens may be a part of a larger world community, but for which regionally interests many times are as individual as the fingerprints, hearts, minds and talents bestowed on God's creations by him.

Who made humanity, based on biblical references, a coat of many colors with regional interests due primarily to their immediate environments and geographical circumstances which significantly impacted their day to day lives and whose geographic "assets" as individual as his children.

The link:

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/July/20090706173355ebyessedo0.3281475.html

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act Behind Napolitano's Memos?

In America yesterday thousands of Americans banded together in order to stage mass protest "tea parties" throughout the nation in response to the recent bank bail-outs, stimulus, high taxes and lack of regulation over the Federal Reserve, a private banking institution which regulates and controls this nation's currency.

Prior to these organized events, a memo was issued from the Department of Homeland Security which now is targeting dissident Americans who do not hold with the federal government's continuing violations upon America's Constitution, including returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, as "extreme right wing" terrorists.

This memorandum was distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the nation.

The memorandum in part, had this to say with respect to it's definition of "right wing extremism:"

"Rightwing extremism," the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to "those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."

Several members of Congress are now confronting the Department's Secretary in an effort to gain an explanation for the broad-based and open ended language contained in the memo, which actually targets any and all who may disagree with governmental policy - although in America such dissident protests and positions are protected under the American Bill of Rights affording the right to "free association and assembly" and "freedom of speech."

In fact, these are fundamental rights and freedoms given to all natural or naturalized Americans, which restrictions in England actually were the basis of America's Revolutionary War in 1776.

Interesting enough, however, no mention by these same Congressmen now objecting has been made that in late 2007 400 members of the House passed an Act, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007" in which such broad based language was included which actually is responsible for Ms. Napolitano's issuance of such an illegal and unlawful memorandum.

That doesn't, in and of itself, excuse Ms. Napolitano. After all, she is an attorney and should know that such an "Act" is a basic violation of the U.S. Constitution and prohibited under it. Also as Secretary of Homeland Security she is bound by the Constitution in the execution also of her duties and not primarily to Congress or the President - but the Constitution.

This Bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, although it is unclear whether or not it has yet been addressed or passed by the Senate.

This Act makes not simply acts of violent terrorism by foreigners against the country or American people a crime, but the mere political disagreement or political ideology which differs with elected or appointed governmental officials by Americans a crime in and of itself.

In short, governmental tyranny at it's core, and a fundamental violation of the basis upon which this entire nation was founded. The founders of this country were "radical" in their beliefs themselves.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, according to a YouTube video, is using this Act in order to now rewrite American history, teaching local and state government officials that the founding fathers of this nation were actually the first terrorists.

Global socialism now is not only destroying this nation's economy, but its very essence, by those now in Washington who have abandoned the very principles and foundations upon which those founders fought - freedom over governmental tyranny.

Actually, it appears this Act and memo have made the government itself a "hate group" of a significant number of the American people, by last polls, that do not agree with the onging War in Iraq, bank "bail-outs," stimulus provisions, taxation now at all levels, or Federal Reserves arbitrary monetary policies. It appears that instead of the government being representative of the people, it is now its own hate group targeting the people.

You can read the provisions of the Senate version (S-1959) of this bill at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959