FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world.
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man
Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man; it belongs to him by force of his humanity, and is in dependence on the will and coaction of every other, in so far as this consists with every other person's freedom. - Immanuel Kant

THE OLIVE BRANCH

THE OLIVE BRANCH

Freedom Adds

Sunday, May 24, 2015

America’s Survival Depends on Stopping Jade Helm

America’s Survival Depends on Stopping Jade Helm


Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

In a popular 1950’s movie, a small town doctor discovered the human race was being replaced one by one, with alien clones devoid of emotion. People would go to sleep and wake up after to find that the alien spores had taken over their mind and body.

This movie which was produced in the 1950’s, was originally intended to be a strong message against communism and that if we fell asleep as a nation, we would one day awaken to a nation that had been hijacked by the communists. The warning is applicable today, but it is not alien spores that we need to be concerned about. In the modern day, we have gone to sleep and awakened to the fact that we have been conquered by the globalists.

This article examines why Americans are being replaced by automation, illegal immigrants and this is being motivated by an autocratic oligarchy that wants to reduce the population by up to 90%. Jade Helm is an important step in the manifestation of this plot against America and ultimately against the world.

Sometimes, it is good to be reminded about the reasons behind why we fight.

Excess Inventory

What do business owners do with their excess inventory? They at first try to get rid of the product by selling at a reduced price and when that fails, they simply destroy the inventory. The latter is the fare that awaits the American people and ultimately the human race. Soon, humanity will no longer be needed because humanity has become the newest form of excess inventory.

Fluoride, aluminum from chemtrails and specific vaccines, artificial sweeteners, dangerous drugs (VIOXX) have constituted some of the passive means of depopulation. Humanity’s very existence is under assault. Why? Because the majority of humans are no longer needed as a species. One of the popular sayings in our society in regard to how many things causes cancer is to dismiss the danger as “everything causes cancer”. And of course, anybody that writes about our toxic environment, dangerous food supply and tainted drinking water is a conspiracy theorist unless they work for the EPA and are preparing to steal your land. As devastating as the soft kill methods that we have been forced to endure are, these methods pale in comparison as to what lies ahead.

Take the Globalists At Their Word

The following quotes are reflective of the notion that the elite are preparing to move from the painfully slow means of soft kill population reduction, to a quicker acting hard kill which will expeditiously reduce the population by 90% in a very short time. This is exactly what the elite are calling for as witnessed by a sampling of globalist quotes listed below.

 "We don't need you anymore".

"We don't need you anymore".
It’s no longer the Third World. Kissinger’s attitude towards all of humanity can be summed as, “We don’t need you anymore”.

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”.
Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” and, “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox”.

Dave Foreman, Sierra Club and co founder of Earth First!

“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary”.
Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes”.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Who is behind the depopulation agenda of the Bilderberg, the Club of Rome, the Trilaterals, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Committee of 300?

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation.”
– David Spangler
Director of Planetary Initiative
United Nations

Many of us in the Independent Media have expressed the view that we are in a battle for humanity’s survival. Ultimately, at the base of this conflict, is a war between good and evil. A war between the Prince of Darkness and Jesus.  The latter quote , by David Spangler, should clearly answer who is behind the depopulation agenda directed towards humanity. However, this does not answer the question as to why is depopulation a necessary strategy for the global elite?

Why Humans Are No Longer Needed

The bulk of humanity has become expendable. We were good to the elite when they could exploit our labor and enjoy the fruits of humanity’s talents.

One-third of jobs now performed by humans will be replaced by software, robots, and smart machines by 2025, according to a prediction by information technology research and advisory firm Gartner. Some estimate that by 2050, 75% of all jobs will be eliminated by automation. This prediction reflects the evolution of robot capability, said Ryan Calo, a professor at University of Washington School of Law with an expertise in robotics.

Robotic abilities are quickly surpassing human ability. Robots do not require food, health benefits nor do they require a minimum wage. The use of robotics in replacing humans will only continue to expand, according to Ray Kurzweil, the director of engineering at Google. Kurzweil anticipates that by 2029 robots will have reached human levels of intelligence and functionality.Many experts predict that these robots will put people out of work and this is exactly what we are finding.

Automation has  lessened the need for human capital. In short, we have become excess inventory and must be disposed of.

For many who cover the misdeeds of the elite, we know at the root of this struggle is the need for the elite to eliminate 90% of all humanity before humanity realizes the true nature of the coming agenda and rises up to oppose this tyranny.  In order to accomplish this, the elite need to move from passive soft kill to hard kill methods and they need to do so very quickly. In order to accomplish this agenda, complete political control must be realized. The former beacon of freedom to the world, the United States must be obliterated along with any notion of individual liberties.

If readers wonder why I am obsessed with the military takeover of this country through Jade Helm, I would answer that I recognize Jade Helm as a necessary first step to completely obliterate the Constitution. And just like the movie, the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, we Americans are finding ourselves being replaced by automation as well as immigrants. There is one fundamental question that never gets asked in the immigration debate and that question is “How many third world immigrants can a nation take on before they become the newest “Third World Nation”.

The treasonous Refugee/Resettlement program has just placed 9,000 Syrians in Idaho without the FBI screening them for possible terrorist ties. This Invasion of the Body Snatchers theme is being repeated all across the country and I have covered it in previous articles. Americans are being marginalized through immigration and refugee/resettlement as a first step towards depopulation.

The Final Solution

The birth rate of people indigenous to our country is 1.6. According to the author of Technocracy Rising, a country has never come back from such a low birth rate. We presently have 35 million illegal immigrants in the country and with the new Refugee/Resettlement program, Americans are slowly but surely being replaced one worker at a time by immigration and automation.

There will become a bifurcation point where soft kill methods, and diluting the native population through massive immigration will not be enough to ensure total dictatorial control over the planet by the globalists because its methods of replacement are not expeditious enough. That is when soft kill will need to become the Final Solution of hard kill.

In history, the pattern is always the same.

Create a false flag series of events which necessitates the need for martial law.
Cordon people off for their own protection.

Exploit whatever free labor can be extracted from this doomed group while they are being protected.
Systematically exterminate the undesirable group.

World War III will evolve out of the turmoil as was the case with World War II. This is when global depopulation will begin in earnest. When the smoke clears and  the bulk of humanity has been buried, the New World Order will truly be born.

Sometimes it is good to be reminded of who we are fighting and what we are fighting for.

Stopping the implementation of Jade Helm should be the goal of every American.

We cannot permit the establishment of this kind of martial law, dictatorial control over country. Once America is successfully occupied, the Final Solution will become a necessary step in the fulfillment of this agenda.  It is important to remember that you are viewed as excess inventory. You are systematically being replaced by foreigners who will work for less and who could care less about the maintenance of the American culture. Soon you will be replaced by robots who will work for nothing. Did you see where Rubio allowed the replacement of thousands of workers, through automation, in Florida? This agenda and its progression to the Final Solution is real.

The following quote catches some of the essence on why we must resist because our very lives depend upon pushing back this tyranny.

larry_mcdonald_rockefeller_one_world_government

by Dave Hodges

Military Reveals Martial Law and Dissident Extraction Plans for US Citizens

Military Reveals Martial Law and Dissident Extraction Plans for US Citizens

raider focus

Over the past two months, many of us in the Independent Media have said it again and again, Jade Helm is about subjugating the American people who will one day rise up to what is coming.

As the American people are kept in the dark about the true nature of Jade Helm, members of the Independent Media have been very consistent about pointing out that Jade Helm, because of its involvement of Special Operations Forces, the “drill” is clearly designed to practice political dissident extractions which would be executed prior to the imposition of martial law. This is a simple and logical conclusion to draw because this is what Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. do in pre-combat activities. The involvement of ARSOF in Jade Helm as a primary player, speaks clearly to intent.

What I never counted on would be the fact that Jade Helm would ever let any part of these kinds of activities to ever become public. The military has now allowed planned political dissident extractions to become verifiably public, and most amazingly, they did so with the release of video that the military, itself, would make, produce and then disseminate.

Gigantic war games, along with a massive military convoy, are commencing in Colorado, prior to the start of the supposed start of Jade Helm 15 exercises in July which has now been officially moved up to June 15th. This ancillary Jade Helm drill is called “Raider Focus” and it is turning Southern Colorado and the Independent Media on its ear.

Vehement Mainstream Media Denials Regarding Jade Helm

Raider Focus, which I am told, is merely a subset of Jade Helm, has been the sold to the citizenry as merely war preparations in the Middle East and this has nothing to do with the imposition of martial law.
There is no Jade Helm conspiracy.













There is no Jade Helm conspiracy.


Courtesy of Fox and Friends
Courtesy of Fox and Friends

Fox and Friends actually referred to the drill as “Jed Helm”. And anyone who dares to profess the belief that “Jed Helm” is about martial law also is dumb enough “to believe in Chemtrails and we all know that is not true”, said Fox and Friends in a recent broadcast. Fox and Friends further stated that Alex Jones scares people and that nobody should listen to him as they invoked the “giggle factor” to discredit what clearly is a martial law exercise directed towards the American people. And of course there are the sloppy disinformation agents at KHOU TV, in Houston, who told the blatant lie in which they stated that I claimed that Americans were “being slaughtered inside of Death Domes in Texas”. Who could forget that the Washington Post actually had an article pinned to the top of Google for five days which proclaimed the insanity of linking Jade Helm to martial law and political extractions in an attempt to discredit Jade Helm naysayers.

I could go on and on with the near universal media ridicule of Jade Helm detractors, but you get the idea. Yet, despite the extreme obfuscation of the truth about Jade Helm by the six corporations that control the vast majority of the dinosaur media, the military is now providing the public with evidence which serves to validate the concerns that Jade Helm is a clear and present danger to the American people.

In a sight in which I could not believe my eyes, at the 3:40 mark in the following video, we see military forces rehearsing extraction drills on citizens.



Why would the military release video-taped images of what are clearly extractions drills? In the video, they even refer to the captured citizens as “detainees”. Check out the martial law manual, FM 3-39.4 nd FM 3-39.33 and the reader will see that this is the universal term for individuals who will be incarcerated in what are commonly referred to as FEMA camps. Again, I ask, why would the military provide the Independent Media with such smoking gun evidence which serves to validate our allegations that Jade Helm is directed at the American people? This question will be analyzed at the end of this article. Just for now, let’s suffice it to say that this is a planned leak of very damning information.http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/09/10/the-armys-plan-for-martial-law-carried-out-under-un-authority/

In another leak of information, we have yet another video which demonstrates that a permanent martial law force is being prepared to be unleashed upon the American public in a matter of months and the source of the information is stunning.

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now

Amy Goodman, the host of the PBS show, Democracy Now, has recently reported that a permanent martial law occupying force that will go live in October of 2015. The martial law enforcement unit is the 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Brigade Combat Team. The mission is to serve as “an on-call Federal response in times of emergency”.

According to the PBS report, the unit will be placed under the control of Northern Command. The martial law unit will be responsible for  stopping civil unrest and engaging in crowd control. As an aside, when the terms “civil unrest” and “crowd control” are used, this can only mean that the 3rd Infantry Division, 1st Brigade Combat Team is rehearsing to subdue the American people in a martial law action.

Goodman reported that the weapons of interest for this unit are primarily nonlethal. The first 50 seconds of the following Democracy Now video tells one all that anyone needs to know about what is coming and how this is being practiced for as I write these words.





Connecting the Dots

Even Fox and Friends would have a difficult time denying what is on video in this article as we have seen clear and demonstrable proof that Jade Helm related activities are connected with political dissident extractions of American citizens and this will be followed up with the roll out of a martial law occupation force.

So, despite the fact that the MSM has embarrassed themselves in denying what is so painfully obvious, the military undoes all of this work designed to obfuscate the truth and basically admits to the fact that America is going under martial law and political dissidents are about to be treated as extreme enemies of the state.

Why would the military engage in such a self-defeating revelation and sacrifice the element of surprise prior to subjugating the American public? I have a hard time believing that the military is not on board with the ulterior motives behind Jade Helm and this release of information is intentional in that they want to see a public backlash. Based on the available information, this is the only thing that makes any sense.

History Repeats Itself

These stunning revelations by our military are not unprecedented and they have happened before. On November 3, 2012, I wrote an article in which I detailed how elements of our military unsuccessfully attempted to rescue Ambassador Stevens just prior to his eventual murder. This action was an attempt at a soft coup directed at the Obama administration and came at a time when Obama was firing command officers at a time faster than their replacements could be seated.
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/03/ambassador-stephens-death-and-the-coming-military-coup/
For 30 months, elements of the military abandoned employing another soft coup attempt because, as I have been told, they did not feel that they enjoyed the popular support of the public which would be a prerequisite for regime change. I would encourage the reader to read this article which demonstrates the extremely strained relationship between military command officers and the Commander-In-Chief.
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/03/ambassador-stephens-death-and-the-coming-military-coup/

Conclusion

It now appears that elements of the Jade Helm task force are not fully on board with the full implementation of the objectives and we are seeing a moderate attempt to warn the American people.

These warnings may be subtle, but to the trained eye, they are undeniable. The best possible outcome with regard to these revelations is to spread these revelations far and wide and see what develops by exposing much of the public to the realizations that “we are not in Kansas anymore”.

 by Dave Hodges

Obama’s Fail on Saudi-Qatari Aid to al-Qaeda Affiliate

Obama’s Fail on Saudi-Qatari Aid to al-Qaeda Affiliate



 News media coverage of the Camp David summit between President Barack Obama and Gulf Cooperation Council members has focused largely on Obama’s success in getting the GCC States to go along with the negotiation of a nuclear agreement with Iran.

But the much more consequential story of the summit is Obama’s decision not to confront Saudi Arabia and Qatar about their financing of an al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria that has made the most dramatic gains in the jihadist war against the Assad regime.

For months the conflict between the policies of the Obama administration and those of Saudi Arabia and Qatar toward the war in Syria has been sharpening.

The US policy has been to arm and train several thousand rebels to fight only against Islamic State forces, whereas the Saudis and Qataris have embarked on a new initiative with Turkey to beef up the capability of Jabhat al Nusra (the Nusra Front), the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, and its jihadist allies by creating a new military coalition in Idlib province to capture territory from the Assad regime.

A source in the Saudi royal family involved in defence and security matters confirmed for this article the existence of the new military coalition and the Saudi and Qatari assistance to it. The source said that the Army of Conquest is a temporary coalition in the Idlib region in which Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham represent 90 percent of the troops. The Saudis and Qataris provide funding for 40 percent of the coalition’s requirements, according to the source, whereas the coalition itself provides 60 percent of its own needs – mainly from capture.

Ahrar al Sham is also believed to be heavily influenced, if not controlled by al-Qaeda. A founding member and senior official of Ahrar al Sham, Mohamed Bahaiah, has revealed in social media posts associated with the organisation that he is a senior al-Qaeda operative. Both Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham have cut their ties with the Islamic State group, although Ahrar al Sham has fought alongside IS in the past.http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/01/statement_from_zawah.php

Idlib breakthrough

The new coalition surprised foreign observers by capturing the province capital of Idlib on 28 March – the most important development in the Syrian war since the capture of al Raqqa by IS in May 2013. The Institute for the Study War in Washington, DC called the coalition’s seizure of Idlib “a victory for al-Qaeda in Syria” and predicted that many in the global jihadist community would view it as a vindication of al-Qaeda’s grand strategy.http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/assad-regime-loses-idlib-jabhat-al-nusra-and-rebel-offensive

In light of those facts, one might expect the Saudi role in creating the new Nusra-dominated force to provoke a confrontation of some sort at the summit. In a column last October, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius had reflected the Obama administration’s irritation over a 2013 operation by Turkey, Qatar and the UAE that had delivered arms to Syrian groups that ended up in the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-foreign-nations-proxy-war-creates-syrian-chaos/2014/10/02/061fb50c-4a7a-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html

The column had appeared on the same day that Vice-President Joe Biden, answering a student’s question at Harvard University, had said Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE had “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” The result, he said, was that “the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world." (Biden later apologised to Turkey and the UAE for “any implication” that the supply of al-Nusra or al-Qaeda had been intentional.)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-vice-president-joe-biden-apologizes-after-calling-sunni-allies-largest-problem-syria-1468602

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/11142683/Joe-Biden-forced-to-apologise-to-UAE-and-Turkey-over-Syria-remarks.html
Now the Saudi and Qatari governments are aiding the al-Nusra Front and its fellow al-Qaeda front Ahrar al Sham quite deliberately, and the policy had seriously increased the threat of an al-Qaeda seizure of power in Syria, even though al-Qaeda was – at least for now -  openly opposing IS.

But the administration’s foreign policy priorities have shifted dramatically. Defending the nuclear agreement under negotiation with Iran from domestic or foreign attack has become the overwhelmingly primary political consideration in relations with the Saudis. When Obama spoke by telephone with King Salman on 2 April, five days after the fall Idlib to the Nusra Front, there was no hint of dissatisfaction with the Saudi role in bankrolling the al-Qaeda spin-off there. Instead Obama was reported by the White House to have focused solely on Iran’s “destabilising activities in the region” and the assurance that the nuclear negotiations with Iran “would not lessen US concern” about those activities.

In a column on 12 May, just before the Camp David summit, Ignatius described the new arrangement under which Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had begun supporting Nusra as leading to major military gains by the “Army of Conquest” and tipping the balance in the Syria war against the Assad regime. He referred to the fact that the Saudi-Qatari initiative was helping al-Qaeda in Syria as a “tricky problem”, but suggested that it was manageable, because it was “likely that in the coming days a Jabhat al-Nusra faction will split publicly from al-Qaeda and join the Army of Conquest.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-cooperation-on-syria/2015/05/12/bdb48a68-f8ed-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/15/an_upbeat_ending_to_obamas_gulf_summit_126606.html

The GCC States came to the summit hoping that they have could get the Obama administration to support a “no-fly zone” on the Syria-Turkey border, according to diplomatic sources in Washington. But Obama was holding out for a different deal. Immediately after the summit, Ignatius reported that both sides had gotten what they wanted. The Saudis and their GCC allies got “assurances of American willingness to challenge Iranian meddling in the region,” while Obama got the official endorsement of the GCC for the nuclear deal.http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/05/07/A-Syria-for-Iran-bargain-at-the-U-S-GCC-summit-.html

As part of the bargain reached at the summit the Obama administration agreed, in effect, to accept that Saudi Arabia and Qatari would continue to finance al- Nusra’s new military power. The issue was covered in a very long annex to the joint statement, which said: “GCC member states decided to intensify efforts to combat extremist groups in Syria, notably by shutting down private financial flows or any form or assistance to ISIL/DAESH (IS), Al-Nusra Front, and other violent extremist groups….”https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/14/annex-us-gulf-cooperation-council-camp-david-joint-statement

But in reality, Obama reached a different understanding with Riyadh and Doha on the issue. As Ignatius formulated the US position at the summit, “Obama and other US officials urged Gulf leaders who are funding the opposition to keep control of their clients, so that a post-Assad regime isn’t controlled by extremists for IS or al Qaeda.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/15/an_upbeat_ending_to_obamas_gulf_summit_126606.html

The Saudis are not backing away from their Syria policy. The Saudi royal family source said the reason for the assistance to the al-Nusra-dominated coalition is “because there are no other options for Riyadh”. The Saudis had tried to assist the Free Syrian Army in the past, he said, but that choice had “failed miserably”.  And since Saudi “could never support ISIS,” which he described as “a main enemy,” this is “an arrangement by necessity”.

Obama is well aware that the fall of the Assad regime is likely to result in a terrorist regime in Syria. His decision to tolerate – at least for now - Saudi and Qatari policies that make that outcome far more likely appears to reflect little more than a personal political interest. But the longer-term consequences and eventual political blowback from that decision could be enormous, which suggests that Obama will have to revisit the issue relatively soon.


By Gareth Porter
- Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Three Years of Confronting Western Propaganda

Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity


The promulgation of International law addressing crimes against humanity was one of the major legal achievements resulting from World War II. As Robert Jackson, the lead American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials put it, the crimes bred by that conflict were “so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.”

Crimes against humanity include government-initiated or -assisted policies or practices resulting in massacre, dehumanization, unjust imprisonment, extrajudicial punishments, torture, racial/ethnic persecution, and other such acts. In reference to the last-cited crime, in 1976 the United Nations General Assembly declared the systematic persecution of one racial group by another (for instance, the practice of apartheid) to be a crime against humanity.

Part II – Undermining the Law

Given the origins of this body of law, it comes as a shock that there are now a number of countries that would like to weaken, and perhaps even do away with, this category of law. These states claim that terrorism, and the so-called war against it, have changed the international environment so greatly that laws designed to protect us all from crimes against humanity are now tying the hands of those who regard terrorism as the present greatest threat to civilization.

While this argument may have some headway with certain governments and populations, it is a distortion of facts and a mangling of history. The vast majority of crimes against humanity require a level of organization and force only found with the state. This fact was brought out during World War II to such a degree that it could no longer be ignored. On the other hand, the crimes of small groups of terrorists may indeed be heinous, but even at their worse, they do not come close, in terms of numbers affected, to the crimes of states. For governments to decry laws attempting to rein in their own major crimes as impediments against their efforts to battle those perpetrating, in comparison, relatively lesser crimes, is more propaganda than truth.

Part III – The Israeli Contribution

Take for example the State of Israel. The fact that Israel is among those states, perhaps the main state, attempting to do away with the laws protecting us all from crimes against humanity should come as yet another shock. How can a state that loudly proclaims that its reason for being is the protection of all Jews, seek to undermine laws that were, in good part, promulgated in response to the brutal persecution of Jews?

Part of the answer to this question may have to do with the fact that Israel does not represent all Jews, but only those who adhere to the Zionist ideology – the ideology of the Israeli state – and it is with the well-being of these Jews that the state appears most concerned. As for the alleged danger to all Jews (for instance, the resurgence of anti-Semitism), one suspects that Israel’s leaders use this as a pretense to pursue policies and practices relevant only to the State of Israel and its guiding ideology. And these policies and practices happen to consistently contravene the laws proscribing crimes against humanity.

The Israelis are not very secretive about this. Take, for instance, Moshe Yaalon, the present Israeli Defense Minister and one of those actively working against international law referencing crimes against humanity. At a recent conference entitled “Towards a New Law of War,” sponsored by Shurat HaDin (an organization of Israeli lawyers operating internationally to defend Israeli military and civilian practices which violate international law), Yaalon declared that in any future with conflict with Lebanon, Israel “will hurt Lebanese civilians including kids of the family … . We did it in the Gaza Strip, we are going to do it in any round of hostilities in the future.” His excuse for this criminal position is that organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas allegedly hide their soldiers and weapons in densely populated urban areas. However, journalists on the ground have found this to be false. Yaalon also held out the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran sometime in the future. The fact that present international law holds such actions to be crimes against humanity is the reason Israel seeks to undermine such law and create a “new law of war.”

Another indicator that Israel will continue to defy this aspect of international law is the recent appointment of Ayelet Shaked as Minister of Justice in the newly formed government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Shaked has declared that Israel is at war with the entire Palestinian people and therefore they all should be destroyed, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” Shaked is a deceptively innocent-looking woman. Her behavior, however, calls to mind Oscar Wilde’s The Portrait of Dorian Gray.


Part IV – The West Gives a Green Light

Major Western nations seem ready to support Israel in this effort, even though it clearly encourages a new era of state-sponsored barbarism. For instance, the U.S. government has consistently protected Israel’s criminal behavior from United Nations condemnation by using its veto in the Security Council. The British government has restricted the use of “universal jurisdiction,” an aspect of international law that allows victims of war crimes to initiate prosecution against responsible individuals in any country that is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. In order to exempt indictable Israelis, the UK has declared that only its Director of Public Prosecutions (always a politically malleable individual), rather than trial judges confronted with strong evidence, can issue universal jurisdiction arrest warrants. The governments of Canada and several European states are attempting to criminalize the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which seeks to pressure a change in Israeli policies toward Palestinians. And on it goes.

Part V – Conclusion

The average citizen is either ignorant of or misinformed about the growing danger to an aspect of international law that protects us all. And that is too bad, because it is the average citizen who will always suffer the most from the commission of crimes against humanity.

Beyond the dangers of ignorance and misinformation, there is the ongoing problem of nationalism. The laws allowing for the prosecution of those who commit crimes against humanity were instituted at a time when most nations were so mindful of the barbarism of World War II that their leaders were willing to let go of a bit of their national sovereignty to create potentially meaningful international law. However, they would not go so far as to create an international police force with truly independent operating powers.

It has been seventy years since the end of World War II and nationalism is as strong as ever, while the memory of its barbaric capabilities has faded – despite isolated reminders offered by the multitude of small wars that come and go almost yearly.

So we are embedded in a cycle of violence, led astray by our faulty memories and national hatreds. By now we should know better, but we don’t.

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.
After my two days marathon discussion with Noam Chomsky, (at MIT in 2012), a bestselling book was born. Later this year a film will hit the cinemas.

Noam and I discussed Western imperialism, and the terror it has been spreading around the world. After WWII, at least 50 million lives were lost. Lives of those whom Orwell used to call “unpeople”; lives brutally interrupted as a result of Western-led and orchestrated wars, invasions, coups and proxy-conflicts.

We discussed at length the Western propaganda, which, for centuries, worked extremely hard to justify everything from the colonialist insanity, to supremacist and exceptionalist theories.

After my encounter with Chomsky, I decided to dedicate at least two years of my life to visiting most parts of the world, where the Empire had been striking; where it was attempting to bulldoze all opposition that was standing on its way to the absolute control over the planet.

My goal was Quixotic - a monster, 1000-page book, exposing and confronting techniques and dogmas utilized by the Empire in all corners of the globe, for purposes of destabilizing “rebellious” nations, overthrowing “unruly” governments, or simply grabbing natural resources.

As a philosopher and investigative journalist, I was aiming at both defining how the Western dogmas and propaganda work, and at giving concrete examples of the horror into which our planet was once again descending.

In the past, I have lived and worked on all continents, from Oceania to South America, North America, Africa, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Throughout the years, I became convinced that the natural development of the human race was interrupted, derailed and forced into dark alleys by extremely selfish, perverse group of people and the states, which I call The Empire.

The Empire is “fundamentalist”; it believes, religiously, in its cultural and racial superiority. It is convinced that dominating the world is its sacred right. To achieve its goal, it is using imperialism, colonialism and savage neoliberalism. It is willing to sacrifice millions, tens of millions of human lives to achieve its goals.

I witnessed its crimes on all continents. And I finally realized that it is my duty to define its actions and deceits.

Soon I decided on the title of my book: “Exposing Lies of The Empire”.

It is clear that the Empire lies and that it uses some of its best brains to spread fabrications, as well as billions of dollars in cold cash. It is because the arrangement of the world is grotesque and thoroughly absurd. And only propaganda, shaped to perfection, can guarantee that status quo is maintained. Propaganda and submissiveness of a brainwashed population (in the West), which accepted such propaganda in exchange for at least relatively privileged position in the world.

I talked to Westerners in Paris, London and New York, and I was stunned how little “freedom” there really is, how intellectually cowardly the citizens of the Empire are. In hundreds of art galleries of Paris, I encountered almost no political art, nothing that would make people dream of a better world. In Europe, the level of knowledge about the ‘surrounding world’ (that very same world which basically feeds the continent) was close to zero. Very little was known about the crimes that the Empire is committing.

Europeans are self-promoters, defining themselves as educated and refined, but well over 99 percent of those I challenged could not name even one Korean writer, or Japanese painter, of Chinese classical musicians. Any elementary school kid in Beijing or Tokyo can produce dozens of names of Western cultural icons from the top of their head.

China is different. It is obsessed with knowledge! I spent days in Beijing and Shanghai theatres, opera houses and galleries. I spoke at Tsinghua University (they ran a 2-day seminar on my work) in order to understand Chinese students better. I drove some 5,000 kilometers all around China. I always knew that the Western media has been openly and shamelessly spreading lies about the PRC, trying to shout loudly and continuously, that China is not a socialist country, anymore. In fact, anybody who knows it well can testify that it is socialist and its tremendous success derives from this very fact.

I visited North Korea, as it was celebrating its 60th anniversary of victory. I spent time talking to North Korean citizens, from farmers and workers, to artists, even to the Vice President. I was enormously impressed – by the housing, public transportationKorea, than in the North. Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun interviewed me on the subject, but no Western mainstream publication would run such a story.

I was writing my book as I went: each country smeared by the Empire and “rehabilitated” by me – one chapter. A story about some outrageous lie – another chapter...

Zimbabwe – I read in the Economist and on the BBC site that crime there is endemic, that there are no functioning operation theatres in Harare’s hospitals, that Harare is “the worst city on earth”. I went. All lies. There were dozens of operation theatres in several hospitals. After Nairobi where I was then living, and after Kampala and Kigali where I was often working - three darlings of Western imperialism, as Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya have been plundering and ravishing the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Somalia on behalf of Washington, Paris and London - Harare felt safe, beautiful, cultural; the capital of the country with the highest literacy rate in Africa. While in Nairobi, more than half of the people live in appalling slums and misery, I found only about one square kilometer of slums in Harare.

South Africa, struggling to shake off its terrible legacy of apartheid, is another target of negative Western propaganda. It is because the country is, despite many hindrances, still marching forward, inspired by the left-wing ideology.

Parallel to writing my book, I was filming several documentary films for TeleSur and PressTV, to keep afloat. I went all “around Syria”, where NATO trained and financed “Syrian opposition”, including ISIS, in the refugee camps of Jordan and Turkey. I travelled to Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The West destabilized, ravished one of the greatest countries of the Middle East, as it ravished the entire region.

I worked in Bahrain and Iraq where, at some point I stood on the bridge blown up by ISIS, looking at two villages bombed to the ground by the US, the city of Mosul only six kilometers away. All actors of this bloody, nightmarish drama were actually related or produced by the Empire’s “foreign policy”, or were part of the Empire themselves.

Lies of the Empire are piling on top of each other. “India, the largest democracy”! Anyone who knows this country, even my luminous Indian friends like writer Arundhati Roy (author of The God of Small Things) and documentary film-maker Sanjay Kak, feel unwell hearing this cliché. India is free only for the elites. It is built on the “ideals” of British colonialism. I call it “securistan”.

In my book, I am showing examples how the Empire tries to destroy Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Eritrea, China, South Africa, and Iran – through outrageous propaganda and through manufacturing of the “opposition movements”. Last year I spent two weeks in Hong Kong trying to understand how the brains of local students work, how they were indoctrinated, and made to fall for the Western dogmas, how they are made to antagonize China. The parallel with the strategy that the Empire is using in order to destabilize and smear Cuba, Venezuela and Russia was striking.

I drove all around Ukraine, realizing how close most of the people there felt towards Russia. I talked to workers at the city of Krivoi Rog, to grandmas in the countryside, to students in Kharkov and Odessa: the West created the conflict in Ukraine and pushed it to complete absurdity, dividing two great nations with virtually the same culture.

I also studied environmental destruction in Oceania and Indonesia. In Micronesia, entire nations may have to be soon evacuated because of the global warming. I wrote entire book on the topic, several years ago, but “Exposing Lies of the Empire” is also touching this shocking subject. All over the Oceania, the Empire created “culture of dependence”, and destroyed enormous old and fascinating civilization.

“Exposing Lies of The Empire” is now in print, but I do not feel that the journey is over. 822 pages (the printing house could not accept 1.000 pages and the font had to be changed) is actually very little, comparing to thousands of horrendous stories that the Empire is triggering all over the world.

There is no time to take a break. Pseudo-reality and outright lies of the Western imperialism have to be confronted.

By Lawrence Davidson

Why Islamic State Is Winning

Why Islamic State Is Winning



The Saudi-Israeli alliance and U.S. neocons have pressured President Obama into continuing U.S. hostility toward the secular Syrian government despite major military gains by the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, leading to an emerging catastrophe in the Mideast, as Daniel Lazare explains.https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/15/did-money-seal-israeli-saudi-alliance/


 President Barack Obama and his foreign policy staff are not having a very merry month of May. The Islamic State’s takeover of Ramadi, Iraq, on May 15 was one of the greatest U.S. military embarrassments since Vietnam, but the fall of Palmyra, Syria, just five days later made it even worse. This is an administration that, until recently, claimed to have turned the corner on Islamic State.

In March, Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of U.S. Central Command, assured the House Armed Services Committee that the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) was in a “defensive crouch” and unable to conduct major operations, while Vice President Joe Biden declared in early April that “ISIL’s momentum in Iraq has halted, and in many places, has been flat-out reversed.”

A couple of weeks later, the President proved equally upbeat following a meeting with Iraqi leader Haider al-Abadi: “We are making serious progress in pushing back ISIL out of Iraqi territory.  About a quarter of the territory fallen under Daesh control has been recovered.  Thousands of strikes have not only taken ISIL fighters off the war theater, but their infrastructure has been deteriorated and decayed.  And under Prime Minister Abadi’s leadership, the Iraqi security forces have been rebuilt and are getting re-equipped, retrained, and strategically deployed across the country.”

But that was so last month. Post-Ramadi, conservatives like Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, have lost no time in labeling such views out of touch and “delusional.” And, indeed, Obama sounded strangely detached on Tuesday when he told The Atlantic that ISIS’s advance was not a defeat.

“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” he said, adding: “There’s no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced.” It was rather like the captain of the Titanic telling passengers that the gash below the waterline was a minor opening that would soon be repaired.

Not that the rightwing view is any less hallucinatory. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, faults Obama for not doing more to topple the Assad regime in Damascus, as if removing the one effective force against ISIS would be greeted with anything less than glee by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his hordes.

“We don’t have a strategy,” House Speaker John Boehner complained on Tuesday. “For over two years now, I’ve been calling on the President to develop an overarching strategy to deal with this growing terrorist threat. We don’t have one, and the fact is that the threat is growing than what we and our allies can do to stop it.” But when asked what a winning strategy might be, the House Speaker could only reply, “It’s the President’s responsibility.” In other words, Boehner is as clueless as anyone else.

In fact, the entire foreign-policy establishment is clueless, just as it was in 2003 when it all but unanimously backed President George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq. Both Republicans and Democrats are caught in a disastrous feedback loop in which journalists and aides tell them what they want to hear and resolutely screen out everything to the contrary. But facts have a way of asserting themselves whether Washington wants them to or not.

The Whys of Failure

With that in mind, here are the real reasons why the U.S. is doing so badly and ISIS is seemingly going from strength to strength.

Reason #1: Obama can’t decide who the real enemy is – ISIS or President Bashar al-Assad.

Even though the White House says it wants to smash the Islamic State, U.S. policy is in fact torn. Obama wants to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But he is unsure what to do on the other side of the border, where he seems to regard it as a potentially useful asset against the Assad regime in Damascus.

This is one of those policy assumptions that no “responsible” journalist dares question. Thus, The Wall Street Journal reported in January that “U.S. strategy is … constrained by a reluctance to tip the balance of power toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” while The New York Times added on Wednesday that the U.S. has purposely bombed ISIS targets in “areas far outside government control to avoid the perception of aiding a leader whose ouster President Obama has called for.”

As long as ISIS limits itself to battling Assad, in other words, the U.S. will hold off. It is only when it sets its sights on other targets that it sees fit to intervene. But there are any number of things wrong with this strategy. One is that it is breathtakingly cynical. Hundreds of thousands of deaths don’t seem to count as the U.S. sets about toppling a regime that has somehow come within its crosshairs.

But another is that it is militarily self-defeating. Allowing ISIS free reign in portions of Syria means allowing it to take root and grow. Harassing the Assad with trumped-up charges about weapons of mass destruction encourages ISIS to expand all the more. As a result, Syria is now “a place where it’s easier for them [i.e. Islamic State] to organize, plan and seek shelter than it is in Iraq,” as an unnamed senior defense official told the Journal.

Perhaps, but the result is that ISIS is able to rest and regroup and prepare for fresh assaults on the other side of the border. Not unlike Afghanistan in the 1980s, the U.S. thinks it can manipulate and control fundamentalist jihadis at will. But as 9/11 demonstrated, it couldn’t be more mistaken.

“In the Middle East the conventional wisdom remains that Islamic State will not be defeated until Assad is,” The Guardian declared on Thursday. Why such conventional wisdom should be accorded more respect than any of the other nonsense that Washington regularly dishes out is not explained. If Assad goes, the likeliest upshot is that ISIS will march into Damascus, its black flags flying. Why this is any sense a positive development is also not explained.

Saudi Double-Dealing

Reason #2: The anti-ISIS coalition is a fraud.

The allies that Obama has recruited in the struggle against ISIS couldn’t be more unreliable.  Joe Biden let the cat out of the bag when he told an audience at Harvard’s Kennedy School last October: “our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria … the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]

The Saudis and the other Arab gulf states thus financed ISIS, armed it, and then cheered it on as it launched itself into a genocidal campaign against Shi‘ites and other minorities. Although Washington claims that the gulf states are allies in the fight against Al-Qaeda, Biden’s statement reveals that they are in fact playing both sides of the net, battling ISIS at times but also funding it when it suits their interests.

To be sure, the gulf states had a change of heart when al-Baghdadi began threatening the House of Saud. As Biden put it: “Now all of a sudden, I don’t want to be too facetious, but they have seen the lord. …  Saudi Arabia has stopped funding. Saudi Arabia is allowing training on its soil … the Qataris have cut off their support for the most extreme elements of terrorist organizations, and the Turks … [are] trying to seal their border.”

But if the Saudis have cut off funding for ISIS, they have upped their support for the Al Nusra Front, the so-called “good” Al-Qaeda that has hawks like Walter Russell Mead of The American Interest and Lina Khatib of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut burbling with excitement.

But the distinction that conservatives draw between Al Nusra and ISIS is much exaggerated. While the two groups are currently on the outs, that is a comparatively recent development. Just a few months ago, they were friendly enough to launch a joint push into Lebanon and then to team up for an assault on the Yarmouk refugee camp in the southern outskirts of Damascus.

In a few months, they will undoubtedly make up and conduct fresh new assaults as well. The Salafists who have flooded into Syria since 2011 are a fissiparous lot, forever combining, splitting up, and combining again, which is why there are currently more factions than types of coffee at Starbucks.

Moreover, it is far from clear that the Saudis have entirely cut off aid. Financial controls in Saudi Arabia are lax, while corruption, according to former Wall Street Journal editor Karen Elliott House, “is rampant, entrapping almost every Saudi in a web of favors and bribes large and small.”

One scholar estimated that as much as 30 to 40 percent of oil revenue disappears into private hands. [See As’ad Abukhalil, The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power (New York: Seven Stories, 2004), p. 88]

Moreover, Saudi religious organizations like the International Islamic Relief Organization, the Muslim World League, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth are a law unto themselves. Although the Saudis have repeatedly promised to rein in terrorist funding by such outfits, Hillary Clinton complained in a secret States Department memo that they had still not done so as of late 2009 – and it is unlikely that they have taken action since.

So promises that the money flow has stopped are less than reassuring. Indeed, the Saudis have a long history of hedging their bets. They turned against Osama bin Laden after Al-Qaeda began bombing Saudi targets in 2003. But they most likely continued to maintain back-channel communications while leading members of the royal family, according to testimony by Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “twentieth hijacker,” funneled money to the group in the years leading up to the attack on the World Trade Center. If Saudi money reached Al-Qaeda then, it is likely that it is still reaching ISIS now, despite Saudi claims to the contrary.

Ignoring Sectarian War

Reason #3: The real problem is a growing sectarian war that the U.S. has done nothing to constrain.

ISIS is merely the forward striking arm of a growing Sunni offensive that is causing turmoil throughout the Middle East. Saudis used to talk about a “Shi‘ite crescent” stretching from Damascus to Baghdad and Tehran. But since Shi‘ite Houthis began taking up arms in Yemen, they have been raging about “a full Shia moon” encompassing Sana’a as well.

As its paranoia shoots through the roof, Saudi Arabia has responded by pounding Yemen with nightly air assaults, funding Sunni terrorists in Syria, sending troops into Bahrain to crush a democratic revolt – Bahrain is approximately 70 percent Shi’ite, but the royal family is Sunni – and engaging in a dangerous war of words with Iran

Saudi Arabia has also stepped up pressure on its own 15 percent Shi‘ite minority, largely concentrated in the kingdom’s vast Eastern Province, home to the bulk of its oil industry. On Friday, ISIS claimed credit for a suicide bombing that killed at least 21 people at a Shi‘ite mosque in Qatif governate, located just a few miles from the Bahrain causeway. But hundreds of Wahhabist websites calling for the total elimination of Shi‘ism undoubtedly egged the bombers on. [Click here, see page 152]

The result is a growing sectarian rift that makes secularism all but impossible. While the U.S. pushes Baghdad for even-handed treatment of Shi‘ites and Sunnis, its long-term alliance with the war party in Riyadh suggests the opposite, i.e. that such pleas are a smokescreen for policies that are frankly and openly pro-Sunni.

Given Biden’s statement at the Kennedy School that Saudi Arabia and its gulf allies were “determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war,” one might think that the U.S. would step back and refuse to have anything to do with a war of extermination against Syria’s religious minorities. Instead, it went along.

But now, Biden went on, Obama has succeeded in persuading the Saudis to cease funding ISIS and undertake the task of toppling Assad themselves. He has “put together a coalition of our Sunni neighbors,” the vice president went on, “because America can’t once again go into a Muslim nation and be aggressive. It has to be led by Sunnis.”

Only Sunnis have the moral authority, evidently, to launch a war of aggression against a Shi‘ite-led government.

Rather than tamping down religious conflict, America’s grossly lop-sided policies have thus done everything to encourage it. The results are a godsend for ISIS and Al-Nusra and equal and opposite Shi‘ite militias as well. No matter how many bombs the U.S. and its allies drop, ISIS can only grow stronger the more the political climate deteriorates.

The Oil Card

Reason #4: Oil.

Saudi Arabia is a growing political liability. Its policies have become so toxic that even old allies are abandoning it. Pakistan has refused to supply troops for the kingdom’s insane assault on Yemen despite being a long-term recipient of Saudi aid while Egypt has also balked at sending in forces.

Given a regime that is increasingly isolated and suspicious of the outside world, the obvious solution for the U.S. would be to loosen its ties with Riyadh, refuse to have anything to do with a religious war against Assad, and try to reach an accommodation with Damascus just as it is doing with Tehran.

But the U.S. can’t. Saudi Arabia is not just any country, but America’s oldest partner in the Middle East. It sits on top of one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves and is the dominant partner in the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, which accounts for another 20 percent of global oil reserves and 23 percent of the world’s proven gas reserves.

The kingdom has nearly $700 billion in foreign-currency reserves and is also the world’s biggest importer of military hardware, overwhelmingly from the U.S. It is thus a country that Washington feels it cannot do without, which is why, in a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, the U.S. these days is increasingly following the Saudi Arabia lead in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere as well.

The consequences have been all too predictable. Indeed, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned nearly three years ago that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda were the dominant force in the anti-Assad movement and that their backers in Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states were seeking to establish a Salafist stronghold in eastern Syria.

In an August 2012 report, the DIA observed that the implications for Iraq were ominous., noting Al-Qaeda’s growing strength in Syria “creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [i.e. the Shi‘ites].

“ISI [Islamic State of Iraq, forerunner of ISIS] could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Military intelligence, it seems, is not always an oxymoron. Nonetheless, the White House pressed ahead.  Overstretched, beleaguered, and increasingly dependent on its Saudi allies, the American empire felt it had no alternative but to follow Riyadh down the rabbit hole, hoping against hope that the consequences would not prove too dire. It was wrong.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Wolf Trap - Act I - Habeas Corpus

Scene 1 - Limited Federal Jurisdiction

Wolf Trap - Act I - Habeas Corpus




Setting the Scene: This Act is a series of scenes that will lead up to the events, the paper chase, that are going on in Montana, in an effort to persuade the Court to recognize that rights of William wolf and the limitations of federal authority, as conceived by the Founders. It will provide an understanding of what was, why it was, and what happened to deceive us into believing that it no longer existed. It will conclude with the ongoing effort to restore the proper relationship between the federal government and us.

From my early school years, I heard explanations pertaining to Habeas Corpus, the “Sacred Writ”. It could be used to remove you from unlawful detention; it could be written on a scrap of paper to be served; it could be served, on your behalf, by anyone who wanted to assist you in being removed from unlawful detention, and, perhaps even more. It was championed as fundamental to our liberty. However, little more was said of it, and it remained only as a mental symbol of something that, though not well explained, was one of the most important inclusions in the Constitution. So important that it was not included in the Bill of Rights, rather, it was part of that first venture into the creation of the new government that we have, today, the Constitution.

Understanding that circumstances might warrant the suspension of that “Sacred Writ”, the power to do so was left solely to the Legislative Branch of the government, and only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Interestingly, this fits nicely within that portion of the Fourth Amendment that states that you have a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against you. But, what do “nature” and “cause” mean? So, we will visit the language of the Founders; from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we find that “nature” is a noun, and that the appropriate definition is, ” The essence, essential qualities or attributes of a thing, which constitute it; what it is”. So, nature is the element (essence) from which the charges are brought. The “cause” is, quite simply, that which brings it about—the act.

So, the “cause” is the act that brings about the charges, and the nature is the source from which the law acquires its authority. And, in any act, for which a “cause” is brought by the federal government, it must also have a source of authority, that being only, and limited to, the Constitution. The Constitution provides for both authority of enactment of laws and limitations upon the jurisdiction within which it can apply those laws and impose penalties, if convicted of the act.

After all, we know that the Constitution was written to set limits upon the government that was created by that document. They granted to that government so created, both powers and authorities, and they imposed limitations upon it.

Most cases that go to the United States Supreme Court are based upon certiorari; that is to see if there were irregularities, or errors, at trial in the inferior court. These writs deal solely with whether the applicable laws, or standards of justice (due process), were properly applied. The decisions in such cases often have the appearance of creating not only detailed instruction as to interpretation of a law, rule, or regulation, but also often they go beyond that written law, serving to extend the authority of such law beyond that was intended by the Congress, when it was enacted. This, however, is based upon the presumption that it if a law is enacted by, or under the authority (rules and regulations), of Congress, it must be constitutional in its enactment.

What is does not do, at least in recent years, is question whether the law, even if constitutionally enacted, is imposed where the constitutional limitations preclude its applicability, i.e. jurisdiction.

Before we proceed further, perhaps understanding what a “writ” is, and what it is not, is necessary for perspective. It is not a court case, nor a lawsuit, nor a criminal prosecution against a person. Quite simply, it is “a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority to act, or abstain from acting, in some way.”

Limited federal Jurisdiction
Under Article I, § 8, clause 17, Congress has “exclusive legislative jurisdiction”. Under Article IV, § 3, clause 2, Congress may “make all needed Rules and Regulations”, with the caveat, “respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” So, under these authorities, many ‘laws” are enacted that apply only to the extent that jurisdiction also applies. A good example of this is a law enacted in 1825 that gave the government the authority to punish “certain crimes against the United States”. We’ll let the act speak for itself:

“That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the sight whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully…”

Take note that this does not apply to government property outside of that limited jurisdiction. The property must be to be on lands that are ceded and jurisdiction also ceded, within the authority granted by the Constitution.

For those interested, there are a number of Supreme Court decisions that support the requirement for a Constitutional nexus for an enactment of Congress to be valid and applicable, outside of that limited jurisdiction. These can be found in the article, “Habeas Corpus - The Guardian of Liberty”.http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm

Now, what we have been taught and have been inclined to believe for our entire lives, is eviscerated, if we heed a decision of the Supreme Court, In Re Lane (135 U.S. 443), ruled on in 1890, in which a man was charged with rape, under federal law. The rape took place in the Oklahoma (Indian) Territory (unorganized), though the case was tried in Kansas (statehood in 1861). Lane was convicted and imprisoned in Kansas. Kansas punishment being less harsh, Lane attempted to challenge federal jurisdiction, opting to be punished under Kansas law.

The law under which he was charged and convicted of, had the jurisdictional, “in the District of Columbia or other place, except the territories, over which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction,” in its wording. Now, that wording, “other place, except the territories, over which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction” can appear to be misleading. However, the Court clarified that rather confusing statement by explaining that “except territories”, was not in the context of Article IV, §3, clause 2 (needful rules and regulations), but rather, as those organized territories, seeking statehood—those which had been granted, by Congress, the authority to propose a constitution and to create Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, and were authorized to enact laws, administer them, and the judicial branch to provide a forum for justice. These same grants of authority were endowed upon the states, within the limits of the state constitution, by adoption of the state constitution and the granting of statehood. The extent of federal jurisdiction, the laws, rules, and regulations, was limited solely to the unorganized territories.

Supreme Court (and Inferior Courts) Don’t Want to Rule on Constitutionality
In 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case known as Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 U.S. 288). The details of the case are not something that we need concern ourselves with, though we must heed the words of Justice Brandeis, as he explained the seven rules that the Court had adopted in applying their judicial authority. The applicable rules are:

The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions ‘is legitimate only in the last resort…
The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of… Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter…

The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation
The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.
As we can see, Rules 1, 4 and 7, are means by which the Court can avoid ruling on the constitutionality of a matter before them.

Rule 5 provides for a condition upon which one must have been injured to even challenge a statute, even as to constitutionality and jurisdiction. And, Rule 6 provides a bar against challenge, if a person “has availed himself of its benefits”.

So, we can see how extremely difficult it is to question constitutionality, jurisdiction, or to even find that you are in a position to challenge the lawfulness, of any act of Congress. But, we also have to understand the “nature” of those “statutes” referred to in the Rules.

In the Ashwander decision, it was pointed out that the Rules had been adopted over the past few decades, so this was really nothing new. Administrative agencies, though few at the time (Tennessee Valley Authority was one such agency), were relatively new. However, in an effort to expand constitutional authority beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution, and based upon the adoption of those Rules, Congress took another step, in 1946, to expand their authority beyond those limits. That will be the subject of Scene 2.

By Gary Hunt

De-Islamization is the Only Way to Fight ISIS

The left loves root causes, but the root cause of ISIS isn’t poverty, unemployment or a lack of democracy. It’s Islam

De-Islamization is the Only Way to Fight ISIS




Obama can’t defeat ISIS with soft power, though ISIS could beat him with soft power assuming its Caliph ever decided to agree to sit down at a table with John Kerry without beheading him. Iran has picked up billions in sanctions relief and the right to take over Yemen and raid ships in international waters in the Persian Gulf just for agreeing to listen to Kerry talk for an hour.

And that might be a fair exchange.

As bad as having your capital or ship seized by Iran is, listening to John Kerry talk is even worse.

If ISIS were to agree to a deal, it could pick up Baghdad and Damascus just in exchange for showing up. All it would have to do is find a Jihadi who hasn’t chopped off any heads on camera to present as a moderate. The administration and its media operatives would accuse anyone who disagreed of aiding the ISIS hardliners at the expense of the ISIS moderates who also represent the hardliners.

If Obama did that, he would at least lose in a way that he understands; instead of in a way he doesn’t.

So far ISIS has preferred the classical approach of killing everything in its path. The approach, deemed insufficiently nuanced by masters of subtlety like Obama and Kerry, has worked surprisingly well. Their response, which is big on the Bush arsenal of drone strikes, Special Forces raids and selective air strikes, hasn’t. But Bush was fighting terrorist groups, not unrecognized states capable of taking on armies.


The left loves root causes, but the root cause of ISIS isn’t poverty, unemployment or a lack of democracy. It’s Islam.
It’s hard to destroy something if you don’t know what it is. And it’s hard to know what a thing is if you won’t even call it by its name or name its ideology.

The left loves root causes, but the root cause of ISIS isn’t poverty, unemployment or a lack of democracy.

It’s Islam.

The Islamic State isn’t unnatural. Its strength comes from being an organic part of the region, the religion and its culture. Its Arab enemies have performed so poorly fighting it because their institutions, their governments and their armies are unstable imitations of Western entities.

The United States can’t make the Iraqi army work because Iraq isn’t America. The assumptions about meritocracy, loyalty to comrades and initiative that make our military work are foreign in Iraq and Afghanistan where the fundamental unit is not the nation, but the tribe, clan and group.

Iraq and Syria aren’t countries; they’re collections of quarreling tribes
Iraq and Syria aren’t countries; they’re collections of quarreling tribes that were forced into an arrangement that included the forms of Western government without any of the substance. When the Europeans left, kingdoms quickly became military juntas. Now the juntas are fighting for survival against Islamic insurgencies that are striving to return the region to what it was in the days of Mohammed.

ISIS is the ultimate decolonization effort. It’s what the left claims that it wants. But real decolonization means stripping away everything the Europeans brought, including constitutions, labor unions and elections. The cities that ISIS controls have been truly decolonized. There is no music, there are no rights, slavery is back and every decision is made by a cleric with a militia or a militia leader with a cleric.

That’s Mohammed. It’s the Koran. It’s Islam.

ISIS, or something very much like it, was always waiting to reemerge out of the chaos. Before ISIS, there were the Wahhabi armies of the Ikhwan which did most of the same things as ISIS. The British bombed them to pieces in the 1920s and the remainder became the Saudi Arabian National Guard. The insistence on democratic institutions weakened the military juntas holding back Islamist insurgencies. Islamists took power across the region. Where they couldn’t win elections, they went to war. But whether they won on the battlefield or the ballot box, violence and instability followed them.Iraq and Syria aren’t countries; they’re collections of quarreling tribes


The fundamental mistake of the Arab Spring was the failure to understand that Islamist democracy is still a road leading to the Caliphate. Turkey’s Erdogan, the Islamist whose rule was used to prove that Islamist democracy can work, now openly promotes the reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire. Or as Mullah Krekar of Ansar Al-Islam put it, “The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion; it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the Caliphate. All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized efforts to bring back the Caliphate.” A decade later, the Norwegian Jihadist leader has proven to be more accurate than his Western hosts.

ISIS is not a reaction. It’s the underlying pathology in the Muslim world. Everything planted on top of that, from democracy to dictatorships, from smartphones to soft drinks, suppresses the disease. But the disease is always there. The left insists that Western colonialism is the problem. But the true regional alternative to Western colonialism is slavery, genocide and the tyranny of Jihadist bandit armies.

Our policy for fighting ISIS is colonialism by another name. We are trying to reform Iraqi institutions in line with our values and build a viable Iraqi military along the lines of our own military. We’re doing much of what the British were doing, but without their financial interests or imperial ambitions.

And all of this is reluctantly overseen by Barack Obama; the progressive campaigner against colonialism.

To deal with a problem, we must be honest about what it is and what we are doing about it. If we lie to ourselves, we cannot and will not succeed. After the failure of democracy and political Islam, Obama has been forced to return to what works. Islamization has failed and so we are back to trying Westernization. The missing element is admitting that Islamization has failed because Islam was the problem all along. The West is the solution.

But institutional Westernization that that never goes beyond a few government offices and military officers won’t work. Neither will the attempt to artificially inject a few big ideas such as democracy into an undemocratic tribal culture. The only alternative to depending on military juntas is transforming the people. Sunni Gulf Arabs responded to their military and economic dependence on the West with a largely successful campaign to Islamize the West. The West won a culture war with the USSR. It is capable of winning one with Saudi Arabia. It has even unintentionally won a culture war with Iran.

ISIS is not a military force. It is a cultural one. Much of its success has come from its cultural appeal.

ISIS is not a military force. It is a cultural one
As long as the Middle East is defined in terms of Islam, some variation of the Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood bent on recreating the Caliphate will continue reemerging. We can accept that and give up, but the growing number of Muslim migrants and settlers mean that it will emerge in our country as well.

We have a choice between Islamization and de-Islamization.

After defeating Saddam, we pursued the de-Baathization of Iraq. If we are going to intervene in the Muslim world, it should not be to reward one Islamist group, whether it’s Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood, at the expense of another. Instead we must carve out secular spaces by making it clear that our support is conditional on civil rights for Christians, non-believers and other non-Muslims.

Our most potent weapon isn’t the jet, it’s our culture. We disrupt Islamists with our culture even when we aren’t trying. Imagine what we could accomplish if we really tried.

But first we must abandon the idea that we need to take sides in Islamic civil wars. Any intervention we undertake should be conditioned on a reciprocal degree of de-Islamization from those governments that we are protecting. Instead of pursuing democracy, we should strengthen non-Islamic and counter-Islamic forces in the Muslim world.


We can’t beat ISIS with Islam and we can’t fight for freedom while endorsing constitutions that make Sharia law into the law of the land in places like Iraq and Libya.

We don’t only need to defeat ISIS. We must defeat the culture that makes ISIS inevitable.

End this Tyranny

Politics can not be allowed to over-ride the Constitution

End this Tyranny



Tyranny is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as:  cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others; a government in which all power belongs to one person.  Escaping the tyranny of a monarch was the reason America was founded.  Our Declaration of Independence from another country, England, states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Our forefathers fought a war to earn America’s freedom from tyranny.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that America would remain the country of free people.  To that end, they provided a legal, peaceful method within our Constitution to strip an internal tyrant of power.  It is the tool of Impeachment defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4:  “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  The House of Representatives issues the impeachment charges and the Senate conducts the trial.

Two American Presidents have been impeached.  Andrew Johnson, the 17th President, was impeached on grounds of disregarding the Tenure of Office Act of 1867.  It prohibited a President from dismissing office holders without the Senate’s approval.  He was impeached by the House of Representatives for trying to throw Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, out of office.  The Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict him and he was acquitted May 26, 1868.  Political maneuvering is cited as the reason there was not a conviction.

William J. Clinton, the 42nd President, was the second impeached.  He was charged with four crimes and impeached in the House of Representatives on two of those, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.  Again, the Senate failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to convict and he was acquitted February 12, 1999.  Again, political maneuvering is cited as the reason there was not a conviction.

Also, Richard Nixon, the 37th President, had three articles of impeachment issued by the House of Representatives on July 20, 1974.  Nixon resigned his office on August 9, 1974, before the House voted to impeach him.

Obama is usurping the law-making power the Constitution gives solely to the Legislative branch of the Federal government, the Congress

In all three instances, the Constitution did its job.  What the Founding Fathers did not foresee was that people elected to represent the citizens would thwart our country’s guiding document, the Constitution, for personal or party gains.  America has evolved into two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.  For too many of those elected to our Congress, the desire to keep their individual power and to maintain their party’s control over spending our tax dollars is more important than ensuring that the Constitution is enforced.

Another safeguard in the Constitution to protect us against tyranny is the assignment of specific powers to three separate branches of the Federal Government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.  No branch may infringe on the powers of the others.  By not taking the appropriate action, impeaching Obama, the Congress has subjected us to having a Tyrant, not a President, heading the Executive branch of the Federal government.

In August, 2013, Business Daily listed several laws Obama has broken.  He chooses what laws do and don’t suit his needs and ignores the latter.  He is usurping the law-making power the Constitution gives solely to the Legislative branch of the Federal government, the Congress.

Obama circumvented the immigration law, deciding not to deport illegal immigrants under the age of 30.  He unilaterally has and continues to change Obamacare.  These are only two examples on a very long list.  After Congress enacts a bill and the President signs it, it is the law of the land.  It can not be changed arbitrarily.  Changes are legal only when they are introduced and approved by the Congress as a revocation of or an amendment to the original law.

Business Daily also lists actions Obama has taken that usurp the power the Constitution gives only to the Judicial branch of the Federal government.  This tyrant ignores court decisions.  Re-imposing a moratorium on off-shore drilling after the courts struck down his original moratorium and refusing to remove his appointees to the National Labor Relations Board after those appointments were ruled unconstitutional are only two examples of his illegal actions.

It is time for Congress to follow the rules; it must act and do what the Constitution demands.  Breaking laws and usurping power are not allowable actions for any President.  It is time to impeach and to try the forty-fourth President, Barack Obama.  This tyrant must be stopped in order to preserve America as it was intended to be, a country of free people without a tyrant or a central power controlling her citizens.

This time, politics can not be allowed to over-ride the Constitution.  Those in Congress who value their individual power and their party’s control over spending our tax dollars more than working for our best interests must be stopped.  Use your voice, your vote, your power as citizens.  Demand that Congress represent our interests by impeaching and convicting the tyrant in the Executive Branch.  Save America from Obama by stripping him of his office.  Return control of America to her citizens.

Unfortunately, Americans face an intentional lack of education in our public-school system to teach our youth how America is governed and their role and responsibility as citizens.  So, citizens must educate themselves.  Read the Constitution.  It is readily available on line or in many libraries.  Before you vote again, prepare to cast an informed vote.  Know what candidates have achieved and what their actions demonstrate about their belief in protecting our individual rights and freedoms.  Research candidates yourself; make your own decisions.  Elect those who will live by their job description as it is defined in our Constitution.  That job is to represent us.    

Kathleen M. Dynan…Cape May, New Jersey