Check Our FeedVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Twitter

The Amerikan Blueprint for Enslavement
and Eventual Extermination

The Amerikan Blueprint for Enslavement <br />and Eventual Extermination

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Americans do not live in an emerging police state; all Americans now live in a fully developed police state. From a false flag event, 9/11, to the development of the most complete police state apparatus the world has ever seen, one has to wonder what’s the “endgame”? The following contains the scripture and verse of the globalist elite’s plan to enslave and depopulate humanity.

There can be little doubt that 9/11 was perpetrated, in part, to legitimize our imperialistic forays into the Middle East which also led to unparalleled oil company and numerous other private sector profits. However, corporate profits were merely a subplot to the real agenda to the 9/11 false flag operation which was the destruction of what was left of the freedom and civil liberties of the American people which would eventually lead to the enslavement of all which will ultimately result in the extermination of many.

All totalitarian governments begin their invasion into civil liberties with the promise of safety from whoever plays the convenient role of the “boogey man” of the day. In Nazi Germany, the original boogey man were the communists who allegedly burnt down the Reichstag and then the specter of boogey men kept expanding until anyone who was been considered an enemy of the German State needed to be controlled. Today, the totalitarian pleas of “Let us protect you from yourself” ring loudly and clearly through the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office. True to the Hegelian Dialectic, America’s present day “boogey men” are the terrorists of 9/11 and anyone who faces east when they pray. Today, that definition has been expanded to include Ron Paul supporters,  Second Amendment advocates, Constitutionalists, Libertarian Party members, in other words, you and I are the new terrorists.

The world has been down this slippery slope in the past and the consequences were catastrophic. If Mark Twain were alive today he might be inclined to say that history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

Gun Control

Since 9/11, the government has stepped up its efforts to ban private ownership of guns.

Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for self-defense against one’s own country. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. Why? FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register or turn in their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?

Gun control and gun confiscation has preceded every instance of genocide in the 20th century. How quickly we forget the lessons of history. If we ever allow government to subvert the second amendment, we very well could be witnessing a prelude to an American genocide. There is nothing as dangerous to a totalitarian regime as an educated and well-armed populace. Before we strip away our last line of defense from the planned actions of an already fully entrenched totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 20 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown shirts”, were arrested and exterminated.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, 40 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 80 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 80 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for tighter gun control legislation. Gun control works, just ask Hitler, Stalin or any other despot.

Frighteningly, American gun control legislation is imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

After the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people, America has been plunged into an ever-increasingly unsafe world, and our citizens are about relearn the lessons of history that they failed to grasp in their United States History classes.

The lesson of the 20th Century genocides can no longer be dismissed as something that could never happen in America. The logic of personal self-defense should be hitting home as our country plunges deeper into the depths of fascist totalitarian control (e.g., Patriot Acts 1&2, Detainee Bill, etc.).

America may be on the verge of committing “National Suicide by Gun Control”. The gun control advocates are positioning themselves and their gun-grabbing policies to be perfectly timed to influence people during this window of opportunity given the war on terror.

National Identification Cards

In Nazi Germany (July 1938), only a few months before Kristallnacht (i.e., the night of the broken glass) in which Jewish businesses were targeted by the infamous “Brown Shirts” for destruction, the notorious “J-stamp” was introduced on National ID cards and then later on passports.

The use of the “J-stamp” ID cards by Nazi Germany preceded the yellow Star of David badges which led to the subsequent deportation of Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals and political dissidents to the infamous Nazi death camps. In Norway, where yellow cloth badges were not introduced, the J stamped ID card was used in the identification of more than 800 Jews deported to death camps in Eastern Europe.

Identification cards, in Rwanda, were a key factor in shaping, defining and perpetuating ethnic identity. Once the 1994genocide in Rwanda began, an ID card with the designation “Tutsi” constituted a death sentence at any checkpoint. No other factor was more significant in facilitating the speed and carnage of the 100 days of mass killing in Rwanda.

National ID cards of all kinds are controversial. In recent years in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Australia proposals for introducing national ID cards have raised serious questions about governmental control, privacy issues and ultimately citizen safety concerns. Classification of ethnic, racial or religious groups on ID cards, however, is a distinctively different issue because of the past use of ID cars used to perpetrate the targeting of “undesirables” for possible detention or death. Of course, an American national ID card would not categorize any citizen for potential abuse, wouldn’t it? Before you answer consider that 1933 Germany was a modern, civilized nation with a constitution.

The dangers of a National ID card are self-evident and are now being played out in a nation’s schools. In San Antonio, students are required to wear ID with RFID tracking chips in order that the all-powerful school administrators can track students both on and off campus in complete violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. In Anderson, SC., elementary school students are being required to provide their finger prints prior to receiving their lunches. The Anderson School District 5 officials are refusing comment and don’t even have this pilot program listed on their district website. Selected school districts in Pennsylvania are conducting a similar fingerprint program as well. Our children are being conditioned to accept an abject and absolute police state surveillance grid.

The First Patriot Act

Many legal scholars and average American citizens decried the passage of the Patriot Act as an affront to constitutionally protected civil liberties. When the Patriot Act was passed, many compared it to the Nazi policies of 1935.

In defense of the Nazi Enabling Act and the modern day American Patriot Act, consider the following two very similar arguments made in both of their behalves: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” The second statement of justification argues that “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.” The first statement is a quote from Hitler’s main henchman, Hermann Goering, testifying at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis seized control of Germany’s democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush’s former henchman, John Ashcroft, who was fervently defending the Patriot Act and explaining that dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn’t make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain roving wiretaps without empowering the court to make sure that the government as certain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation.

The Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrant. Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time

Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it’s trying to protect against terrorism. The statute authorizing the use of “national security letters” (NSL’s) as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. In a report published by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee an Inspector General Report delivered to Congress found that there were 143,074 NS Letters requested in two years, between 2003 and 2005. Another disturbing fact from the same report states that From the 143,074 NSLs requested, there was only 1 confirmed terrorism-related conviction. So, in actuality, who is the law really designed for?

Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the “enemy combatant” terrorist designation.

The Second Patriot Act

The Second Patriot Act has been called The First Patriot Act on steroids. Through the principle of totalitarian incrementalism, the Second Patriot Act greatly expands the over-reaching powers of the First Patriot Act and annihilates all of the firewalls (e.g., the Bill of Rights) between governmental tyranny and the United States Citizenry.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 109 allows the newly created secret courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate self and/or others. This section obliterates the Fifth Amendment.

SECTION 123 restates that the government doesn’t required search warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep (e.g.,Total Information Awareness Network). One passage in this section reads, “Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.”

SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners’ and medical examiners’ investigative operations whenever they choose. This is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s special medical examiner he had in Arkansas who ruled that people had committed suicide when their limbs had been severed.

SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings when things are not going the Feds way.

SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents which effectively eliminates any and all oversight from within the government.

SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. Therefore, when you are detained for what were formerly legal protest activities, you and your family will be unaware of your whereabouts when you suddenly disappear.

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. Pelosi and Reid can engage in money laundering, similar to Bush 41 and his endless stream of money laundering companies (e.g., Zapata Oil) and nobody would be the wiser. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR. Also, Geitner’s (Turbo tax serial evasion schemes are not subject to legitimate review because he and all federal officials are now above the law.

SECTION 501 expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens who “may” have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First Patriot Act now permits a new, unlimited definition of terrorism in order that all dissidents can be imprisoned without due process. Therefore, under Section 501 an American citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a prison never to be seen again.

SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing. Sheriff Mack and a few “Oathkeepers” stand alone

SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security and the FBI, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures. Have you ever heard of Infraguard?

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments. Big Brother is going to creep up on us one peep at a time. This reminds one of the fact that ministers, priests and rabbi’s are now spying on their flock through the Clergy Response Team.

SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 402 is titled “Providing Material Support to Terrorism.” The section states that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.

SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Reminder: Any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.


SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty. Reminder: Any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

SECTION 427 sets up an asset forfeiture provision for anyone engaged in alleged terrorist activities. In typical Mafia fashion, the Feds must get their cut.

Several times, in each subsection, the Second Patriot Act states that its new Nazi-type powers will be used to fight international and domestic terrorism (e.g., 911) and other types of crimes. Again, the government has already announced in Section 802 of the First Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism. Political protests, being a Ron Paul supporter, being a veteran, an ardent supporter of the Constitution and many other patriotic behaviors have already been deemed to be the actions of a terrorist. Really, you say? Haven’t you heard of the MIAC Report? I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, have written editorials, I have done talk shows espousing the many virtues of the Bill of Rights and I am a registered Libertarian. In the eyes of the Feds, I am unquestionably a terrorist and am subject to any and all of the provisions of the Patriot Acts, One or Two. Where does this place you?

The Military Commissions Act

America is walking down this same slippery slope with the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, also referred to as the “Detainee Bill”.

Most Americans may be unaware that Presidents Bush and Obama, like Hitler, came to power legally. Hitler and his Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that’s what makes the Bush/Obama comparisons so compelling.

On its face, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 appears to protect Americans from the dangers associated with terrorists. However, many who have examined this law has grave concerns over what this law will mean to average American citizens. For example, Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, “(this legislation)….authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.” Along the same lines, legal scholar and professor, Professor Marty Lederman, explains: “this [subsection (ii) of the definition of ‘unlawful enemy combatant’] means that if the Pentagon says you’re an unlawful enemy combatant, using whatever criteria they wish. Then, as far as Congress and U.S. law is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to ‘hostilities’ at all.”

Most Americans would not express sympathy for their fellow countrymen who would dare to betray our country and provide aid and comfort to the enemy, nor do I. But a present, President of the future is not just talking about enemy collaborators; he could be talking about you if you dare to criticize the government, its leaders and its policies. Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v.of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 discusses crimes prosecutable by the various military commissions. This includes the following definition: “Any person subject to this chapter, who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” Under this law, you have an implied duty to demonstrate allegiance and a sense of the duty to the United States and its government. This offense is punishable by death. If a journalist dares to challenge the official version of 911 are they, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy? When journalists challenged the veracity of the claims for presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as a questionable pretext for war, would these journalists now be considered to be in a material breach of their duty as a United States citizen? The current definition of “enemy combatant,” to whom the law would apply, broadens its reach from those who “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to those who “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Material support is a vague concept that can be, and has been, applied to lawyers and interpreters assisting clients. Should lawyers who are United States citizens, acting within the boundaries of the United States and plainly protected by the Constitution, be subjected to trials before a military tribunal rather than a criminal court? The vagueness of the law seems to say yes. Further, for an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place? Several constitutional scholars concur that this law clearly applies to United States citizens. This is indeed frightening!

Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following:

1. Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal’s choosing.

2. Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.

3. A change of the definition of “pillaging” which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.

The new Detainee act does much more than broaden the definition of an enemy combatant and demand allegiance to the United States government and its officials. For example, Habeas Corpus is gone as the new law declares “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

With the passing of the German Enabling Act of 1933, Hitler removed the last vestiges of democratic pretense in pre-Nazi Germany. Article two of the Enabling Act stated that “Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.” Ultimately, what the Enabling Act meant was that the executive branch of the German government was empowered by the legislature to decide what the law was. Hitler was permitted to ignore the German constitution and neither the courts nor the legislature would have the means to check his new found executive power. Today, the United States government has the American version of the Enabling Act; Patriot Acts One and Two.

NSPD 51 and HSPD 20

The combined directives of NSPD 51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, thus overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement:

NSPD 51 grants extraordinary Police State powers to the White House and Homeland Security (DHS), in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”. The President, alone, decides what constitutes a national emergency which could lead to the implementation of martial law.

John Warner Defense Act of 2007

Public Law 109-364, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, was signed into law in a private Oval Office ceremony. It allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere within America. No doubt that NORTHCOM was created for the enforcement of this eventuality. This act also permits the President to take control of all state based National Guard units without the consent of the state’s governor in order to “suppress public disorder.” Further, Section 1076 of this Act, entitled “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies and Section 333 Major Public Emergencies which could include any interference with State and Federal Law, says that the President may use the forces at his disposal when he alone determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that a State is incapable of maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination thereof or conspiracy to commit these acts against the United States.” This quote does not require any elaboration.

FEMA CAMPS and REX 84

Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to sign Article 48, an “emergency” decree authorizing Hitler to suspend all civil rights, arrest and summarily execute any person who was designated as being a person who was deemed “suspicious” by Hitler and his cronies. Subsequently, a reign of terror ensued in which thousands (communists, social-democrats, labor union leaders) were arrested and sent to prison, or worse. To maximize Nazi influence, the non-Nazi press was outlawed. And so began one of the darkest chapters in human history.

In 1999, the Federal government has entered into a no bid contract with KBR to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railroad cars equipped with shackles, purportedly to transport “detainees” (San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL&hw=Dan+Hamburg&sn=001&sc=1000#ixzz0bOT5ySSa

Who will inhabit these secretive prisons? Author Naomi Wolf, contends that the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month. Another good clue about who may inhabit the FEMA prisons may lie in the now infamous MIAC report. According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous militia member or terrorist designation: The United Nations, the New World Order, Gun Control, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, The Ammunition and Accountability Act,

The North American Union, Universal Service Program, the use of RFID’s, anti-abortion and illegal immigration. You may also be considered a terrorist if you are any of the following: A Ron Paul supporter, espouse pro-constitutional beliefs, are a member of any fringe political parties (e.g., Libertarian and Constitution parties), pro Second Amendment and amazingly if you are a veteran. Under the Patriot Acts and all the myriad of police state legislation, following 911, we are all at risk. What’s in your wallet?

The National Defense Authorization Act

The unforgiveable sin of this holy grail of enslavement coalesces in and around the National Defense Authorization Act. The major provision at issue is Section 1021, which was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days. Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon’s post on RedState explaining the bill’s detention policy. Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.

Sec. 1021, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.” None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” for if one defines the law vaguely, any person could potentially be declared a terrorist. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.

Sec. 1022, the bill’s mandatorydetention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners. Only sec. 1022 states that it “does not extend to citizens of the United States.

What’s troubling is that Chairman McKeon’s post gives you the impression that it defends Sec. 1021—the discretionary detention provision—when, in fact, his post is all about Sec. 1022, the mandatory provision. The post conspicuously defends “the provision,” without referencing a specific section number. And, at the end, it includes a chart titled “Section 1021 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act,” even though one of the two quotes in the chart is from sec. 1022, not 1021.

Sec. 1021—the provision I and other constitutional conservatives are most concerned about—is much more difficult to defend. Its expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF. To understand how much power sec. 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF’s text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.

Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.” While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported … associated forces,” whoever the hell they are.

An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.

NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 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.

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.

In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Senator Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.

The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, the problem is how do we get most Americans to become aware of this act which invalidates nearly every civil liberty? The short answer is that you distribute this article far and wide to as many people as possible.

Summary

The government states that they must look at everything to “determine” if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you and I are guilty until proven innocent.

1. Secret CIA prisons are a known fact

2. The use of Gestapo-like torture has been defended by our top governmental officials

3. Spying on all American citizens is legal and has been fully implemented for a very long time.

4. Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial are now a legal reality.

5. The plain site existence of the omnipresent imperialistic militarism and corporate-benefiting wars of conquest are a part of the national fabric and the daily operating philosophy of the government.

6. Secret and unlawful detention and even murder has been committed against American citizens.

7. Denial and restriction of habeas corpus. Remember: The Constitution is just a “G__damn piece of paper.”

Amerika is headed back to the future and the year is 1935. Our future nooses and coffins, incinerators and Camp FEMA reservations are in place. The country is merely awaiting the right trigger event, likely a false flag event, which will bring these resources into play.

We now live in third world Banana Republic where law is meted out at the whim of the power elite. There is no Constitution. There is no justice.  There is the “just us” of the global elite who have hijacked our government.

This is not the government that I support. This is not the government that I should be paying taxes to and this certainly is not the government that I want to live.