Ginsburg doesn't recommend the US Constitution yet she is a supreme court justice

(She looks like she is saying "you sweet boy now tell momma why you havn't declared martial law yet.")

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo has posted an Alhayat TV interview of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She traveled to the region last month in coordination with the State Department to meet Egyptian counterparts as they begin the nation’s constitutional transition.

Asked by the English-speaking interviewer whether she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

(Suprerme Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. She doesn't "look" to the US Constitution if she were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.

This woman doesn't think the US Constitution which she distains is good enough for any country to emulate.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg might as well be registered as a foreign government agent.

She as many other Traitors and Saboteurs of the US Constitution are the enemy within.) Story Reports

Ginsburg quotes:

"Boy Scouts should be required to accept gay scoutmasters." (Jun 2000)

"State laws can protect gay rights." (May 1996)

"Disallow all sodomy laws against same-sex activity." (Jun 2003)

"Grandparents get no visitation rights unless parents agree." (Jun 2000)

"Treaty giving individual rights should bind US courts." (Mar 2008)

"Votes with liberal bloc against states’ rights." (Dec 2000)

"Waiting to decide on ObamaCare will provide better decision." (Feb 2011)

"Congress authorized detaining US citizens as enemy soldiers." (Jun 2004)

How Billionaires Rule Schools

How Billionaires Rule Our Schools

Joanne Barkan

THE COST of K–12 public schooling in the United States comes to well over $500 billion per year. So, how much influence could anyone in the private sector exert by controlling just a few billion dollars of that immense sum? Decisive influence, it turns out. A few billion dollars in private foundation money, strategically invested every year for a decade, has sufficed to define the national debate on education; sustain a crusade for a set of mostly ill-conceived reforms; and determine public policy at the local, state, and national levels. In the domain of venture philanthropy—where donors decide what social transformation they want to engineer and then design and fund projects to implement their vision—investing in education yields great bang for the buck.

Hundreds of private philanthropies together spend almost $4 billion annually to support or transform K–12 education, most of it directed to schools that serve low-income children (only religious organizations receive more money). But three funders—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad (rhymes with road) Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation—working in sync, command the field.

Other foundations—Ford, Hewlett, Annenberg, Milken, to name just a few—often join in funding one project or another, but the education reform movement’s success so far has depended on the size and clout of the Gates-Broad-Walton triumvirate.

How do these foundations operate on the ground? How do they leverage their money into control over public policy? And how do they construct consensus? We know the array of tools used by the foundations for education reform: they fund programs to close down schools, set up charters, and experiment with data-collection software, testing regimes, and teacher evaluation plans; they give grants to research groups and think tanks to study all the programs, to evaluate all the studies, and to conduct surveys; they give grants to TV networks for programming and to news organizations for reporting; they spend hundreds of millions on advocacy outreach to the media, to government at every level, and to voters. Yet we don’t know much at all until we get down to specifics.

(School choice is in fact teaching left wing socialism to students. Just look at the above left wing foundations that are buying influence in the schools of their "choice".

I think the only answer is to get you child the heck out of "school choice" and public schools. The only answer is to home school your child yourself.) Story Reports

OBAMA’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PART OF A MANUFACTURED FAKE IDENTITY

Visit: ParrotNewsReport.com (Real News) (Citizen Journalist)


Susan Daniels Testifies in Atlanta: Obama's Social Security Number is Fraudulent



OBAMA’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PART OF A MANUFACTURED FAKE IDENTITY

Susan Daniels is a licensed private investigator who has researched the use of the social security number currently being used by Barack Hussein Obama which she has determined was issued in the state of Connecticut, where Obama has neither lived nor worked. Daniels has stated that the number had originally been assigned to a man from Connecticut born in 1890.

Daniels is president of Susan Daniels & Associates, which is located in Ohio and was incorporated in 1995.

Author Jack Cashill has consulted with Susan Daniels on the issue of Obama’s social security number and has written a book, Deconstructing Obama, which presents Cashill’s evidence that Obama did not write his own autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Cashill believes that Bill Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground wrote the book.

Ayers has been described as an “unrepentant domestic terrorist” who had bombed the Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Ayers and his later wife, Bernardine Dohrn, had built bombs which accidentally killed Ayers’s girlfriend at the time, Diana Oughton, in 1970. The Weather Underground had planned unsuccessfully to bomb Ft. Dix, a U.S. Army base in New Jersey and has been accused by one writer of treason.

Obama has been described as “comfortable” in the company of such former terrorists and radicals. Ayers and his wife still live in Hyde Park, where the Obamas lived before moving in to the White House in January 2009.

*** ***
There is evidence that Ayers committed identity fraud, stealing birth certificate numbers from young children who had passed away.

During her investigation of Obama’s use of the Connecticut social security number, Daniels also located two social security numbers associated with Michelle Obama, one of which Daniels stated does not belong to her.

On September 30, 2009, Daniels submitted a sworn affidavit of her findings for both of the Obamas which was assimilated into the Barnett v. Obama lawsuit. A second sworn affidavit was submitted on October 19, 2009.

In March 2011, Daniels wrote to the Social Security Administration and told them that Obama had been using a fraudulent social security number. Of the response she received, she said, “Usually if you get something back from the government, it will say, ‘You’re wrong because of Section such-and-such…’ They’ll cite something proving that you were wrong and why you were wrong. This one is a four-sentence letter, and it said, ‘After reviewing the information you provided, we disagree with your conclusion that a person’s social security number depends upon the address of residence.’ ‘We disagree!’ It’s hysterical, because they didn’t cite any reason why I wasn’t right. It’s not a question of opinion; it’s whether or not my contention was accurate.”

.................................................

(Its very obvious obama has a manufacutred identity. Its is also obvious his terrorist buddy bill ayers helped him fake his identity when they were working together. Not only does obama use a fake ss number but almost everything associated with his past is covered up or faked. If obama was really checked out by the federal governent he could not even get a green card to work in the US.

Obama is NOT a natural born citizen because he also claims on his fake "birth certificate" that his "father" was born in kenya. Obama is a foreign agent who has presented himself as a US citizen.) Story Reports

Leo Donofrio Conclusion About The FRAUD Obama

Amicus Brief Leo Donofrio State Of Georgia

Leo Donofrio Atty

Conclusion:

Since President obama does not qualify as a member of the class of persons identified as natural-born citizens by the US Supreme Court in Minor Vs Happersett, he is not eligible to be President of the United States, and his name, therefore, should not be allowed on Georgia Ballots for the 2012 presidential election.

Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

U.S. Supreme Court MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 1874

(No there is no doubt obama is a FRAUD "president". Yes the US Supreme Court did define what the US Constitution says about a natural born citizen being required to hold the office of president. Obama is an illegitimate president born of parents, (the democrate party) who unlawfully birthed obama into the world as a legitimate candidate. ( Story Reports

Obama's Attorney Slapped Down By Georgia Secretary of State

Obama's Attorney Kicked In The Butt By Georgia Secretary of State

Georgia Secretary Of State Tells Obama To Put Up Or Shut Up

The Office of Secretary of State

January 25, 2012

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road,NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearing sscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril. I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Kemp

Michael Jablonski Secretary Of State Georgia

January 25, 2012

*************************************************

The south shall rise again.

(The Georgia secetary of state is telling obama to prove his US citizenship. I hope the fraud obama is not on the Georgia ballot because he can't validate his US citizenship. Thursday is when the hearing is scheduled. Obama must be sweating and smelling like BO as the hearing gets near.) Story Reports

Pay No Attention to The Men Behind the Curtain That Control Elections

Pay No Attention to The Men Behind the Curtain That Control Elections

Pay No Attention to The Men Behind the Curtain
Black Box Voting — Bev Harris Black Box Voting Chap 16

Bev Harris

If you are inclined to let other people fix this problem for you, please remember that “other people” are already hard at work to change your voting system to suit their own agenda and profit margin. These other people may have a different view of democracy from yours.

What are their plans? Let’s look behind the curtain at a secret meeting that took place at 11:30 a.m. August 22, 2003. Invitations were sent out to all the makers of computer voting machines and included the following agenda:

ITAA eVoting Industry Coalition DRAFT Plan, Activities, and Pricing Purpose: Create confidence and trust in the elections industry and promote the adoption of technology-based solutions for the elections industry. Repair short-term damage done by negative reports and media coverage of electronic voting. Over the mid- to long-term, implement strategy that educates key constituencies about the benefits of public investments in electronic voting, voter registration and related applications.

The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is a lobbying firm that specializes in getting special treatment for technology companies.

In this proposal, the ITAA is trying to get hired to provide assistance to Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and other voting-machine vendors to get the public to accept their products. Not to correct the flaws in their products, mind you, and not to do any type of “customer survey” to find out what we voters actually want. The idea is for these for-profit companies to define our democratic voting system and then invest in a PR campaign to show us that we like their system.

*********************************************

Using South Carolina’s touchscreen voting machines

Voters securely cast their vote for each race and/or ballot proposition simply through the touch of the screen. Its Audio Ballot feature easily assists those voters who are visually impaired. Weighing only 14.35 pounds, the new voting machine is the most portable system in the industry enabling curbside voting and wheelchair access, and it is powered either by 120-volt AC current or a rechargeable battery cartridge. To ensure voter intent and ballot correctness, the new voting machine prevents the voter from over-voting and alerts the voter of under-voted races.

***********************************************
Read below about the security of SC voting machines. The info about securely casting a vote is BS from you local county office. These voting machines flip flop as much as do the liars that claim to be running for office.

*****************************************8****

ES&S IVotronic Machines Proven Vulnerable to Hacks, Viruses, and Failures

Altering data via the touchscreen interface

This is perhaps the most serious practical threat to the iVotronic firmware. As discussed in Section 4.2, errors in the iVotronic’s PEB input processing code allow anyone with access to the PEB slot on the face of the terminal (including a voter) to load malicious software that takes complete control over the iVotronic’s processor. Once loaded, this software can alter the terminal firmware, change recorded votes, mis-record future votes, and so on throughout the election day and in future elections.

Viral compromise

A compromised iVotronic can modify a PEB such that it carries a malicious payload which infects other iVotronics on which it is subsequently used. This iVotronic to iVotronic propagation can happen, for example, while a master PEB is being used to run Logic-and-Accuracy tests on the iVotronic terminals being used in a particular election.

(Also if the above flaws didn't "fix" the election the company that tabulates the votes in a foreign county can "fix" the election also. Yes I said a company in a foreign country counts your votes and can manipulate the votes.

No I am not saying not to vote. I am making you aware that in countys and precincts your vote cannot be verified. Only a total vote or total vote per candidate posted on the precinct door can be seen coming out of the black box. There is NOTHING coming out of a black box that you can use to verify your individual vote.

Black box voting has a lot in common with barack obama. Obama's "birth certificate" was counted and issued by a black box also. Obama's black box "birth certificate" cannot be verified. Obama will not allow anyone to examine what is on file in Hawaii. This is because Hawaii holds obama's fake birth certificate in a black box. The black box is like a black hole. Nobody can examine what it contains except through electronic examination or "special" permission. The FIX is in for sure.) Story Reports

*****************************************

(USA) 1/12 - GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM - By

Bev Harris

Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Black Box Voting

Vote And Vote Often

Using South Carolina’s touchscreen voting machines

Voters securely cast their vote for each race and/or ballot proposition simply through the touch of the screen. Its Audio Ballot feature easily assists those voters who are visually impaired. Weighing only 14.35 pounds, the new voting machine is the most portable system in the industry enabling curbside voting and wheelchair access, and it is powered either by 120-volt AC current or a rechargeable battery cartridge. To ensure voter intent and ballot correctness, the new voting machine prevents the voter from over-voting and alerts the voter of under-voted races.

***********************************************
Read below about the security of SC voting machines. The info about securely casting a vote is BS from you local county office. These voting machines flip flop as much as do the liars that claim to be running for office.

*****************************************8****

ES&S IVotronic Machines Proven Vulnerable to Hacks, Viruses, and Failures

Altering data via the touchscreen interface

This is perhaps the most serious practical threat to the iVotronic firmware. As discussed in Section 4.2, errors in the iVotronic’s PEB input processing code allow anyone with access to the PEB slot on the face of the terminal (including a voter) to load malicious software that takes complete control over the iVotronic’s processor. Once loaded, this software can alter the terminal firmware, change recorded votes, mis-record future votes, and so on throughout the election day and in future elections.

Viral compromise

A compromised iVotronic can modify a PEB such that it carries a malicious payload which infects other iVotronics on which it is subsequently used. This iVotronic to iVotronic propagation can happen, for example, while a master PEB is being used to run Logic-and-Accuracy tests on the iVotronic terminals being used in a particular election.

(Also if the above flaws didn't "fix" the election the company that tabulates the votes in a foreign county can "fix" the election also. Yes I said a company in a foreign country counts your votes and can manipulate the votes.) Story Reports

*****************************************

(USA) 1/12 - GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM - By

Bev Harris

Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

Black Box Voting

Obama says that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

Obama says that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

Judge Michael M. Malihi Order for Obama To Come To Georgia

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Obama’s lawyer argued this in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

Georgia administrative court Judge Michael M. Malihi took a different view about obama's defense of why he didn'y need to prove he is a valid US citizen.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”

Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

*************************************************

Obama says that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

(That makes as much sense as saying obama is not responsible for the US economy or it depends on what "is" means.

Obama is a fruad who has displayed a "birth certificate" that was manipulated to look like it was his. He will not and cannot produce the original birth certificate in Hawaii. What the public has seen is a total fabrication of a birth certificate and the truth. Obama is a liar and illegal "president".

To this date obama has not produced any document that can validate his birth in Hawaii.) Story Reports

100% OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTES GO THROUGH a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.

100% OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTES GO THROUGH a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.

(If that wasn't bad enough SC has an "open" primary which means anybody can vote in a so called "republican" primary. Also you do not need to produce an id to vote. I asked to make sure and it is true. This means anybody could vote by just claiming to be a registered voter. So vote and vote "often"?

When I voted I didn't know if someone had already voted for me! The fix is in for sure.) Story Reports

****************************************************

In South Carolina, 100% of election results will be redirected through a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.

There is only one way to immediately find out whether Scytl/SOE reported the right results*, and that is for members of the public to capture evidence of reported precinct results when polls close tonight. Think of it as a giant neighborhood watch.

Precinct results should be posted at each polling site. In addition, during poll closing the public has a right to be in the polling place watching and videotaping what goes on.

SC Polls close at 7PM so be there to check up on the tabulation of individual voting machines. You only want the total that will be posted for the public. Don't get in the way.

SC results

Compare total tabulation posted at the precinct to the results reported at the above link.

* Well, you have to put an asterisk alongside "the right results" because in South Carolinia you get a two-fer. Results could be incorrect at either end of the pipeline -- from the ES&S iVotronic paperless touchscreen voting machines, which have a history of incorrect totals, or from the private results reporting firm Scytl/SOE Software, which has centralized control over what gets reported.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is Unconstitutional

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 Is Unconstitutional

by Brian J. Trautman

Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversialprovisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.

This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA,foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”

Regardless of whether or not this law is interpreted as applying to U.S. persons, by specifically targeting foreign nationals, the NDAA violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law. Therefore, any way you slice it, this law is unconstitutional.

Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations. As television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow put it in recent segment, “you now live in a country where, technically at least, the military has a legal role to play in civilian law enforcement.” Dr. Maddow pointed that while this may or may not be invoked during the present administration, “thanks to this bill…if this president changes his mind or some other president in the future does want to arrest Americans and lock them up in military custody forever without trial, our government statutorily now claims that as its right.”

Although more than two-thirds of the House voted in favor of the NDAA, not every member was on board with it. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) remarked that “what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution.” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) described this bill as a threat to “the inalienable due process rights afforded to every American citizen under the Constitution.”

The NDAA’s draconian detention provisions have received most of the attention, effectively overshadowing the fact that this legislation continues a trend of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on so-called “defense” objectives. According to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of only 13 members of the Senate to vote against the NDAA, “the bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined.”

The executive branch has acquired greater authoritarian and unaccountable power under this law which disaffirms justice as a fundamental human right. It brings the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition home. Tom Parker of Amnesty International USA argues that the NDAA “provides a framework for ‘normalizing’ indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life.” What democracy and civil liberties we did enjoy in this country before the NDAA of 2012 became law have been severely weakened, and our nation’s moral and legal credibility in the world, which has been gradually declining since the so-called “war on terror” was declared by President Bush, has been diminished further.

The NDAA of 2012 increases the United States’ worldwide detention authority. In doing so it further entrenches a culture of war in American society. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield… the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”

As difficult as it might be to have any faith left in the Congress, there is hope on the horizon for overturning at least the portion of the law that threatens U.S. persons. The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, H.R. 3702, authored by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and Martin Heinrich (D- NM) and currently co-sponsored by 32 House members, including the ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees, clarifies existing U.S. law and states unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful U.S. residents. It ensures that U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil are protected. The bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971, clarifying that a congressional authorization for the use of military force – such as that in the NDAA which included the detainee provisions – does not authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. H.R. 3702 is companion legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, S. 2003.

Since 2001, the Patriot Act, the AUMF, and now the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 have eroded of many of our most valued constitutional rights. Our nation is moving away from government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and toward a totalitarian state. The late historian, Howard Zinn observed, “Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country [America], for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.”

It is up to the American people to stop this fear-mongering and this unfettered growth of the military industrial complex. How? Americans can begin by actively dissenting against laws that violate their Constitution and their conscience. Dr. Zinn believed very strongly that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

If the Constitution is to be defended against those who aspire to destroy it, all Americans have a duty to themselves and their country to stand up and demand progressive change toward a culture of peace and justice. One of the most effective ways to do this is by engaging in methods of nonviolent direct action, as demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement. As more Americans embrace these methods and the Occupy movement grows stronger, Washington will be forced to end its campaign of militarizing law enforcement and American society or risk being voted out of office. Only then can the freedoms and civil liberties the people are promised in the Constitution be restored.

Brian J. Trautman is a military veteran and an instructor of peace and world order studies at Berkshire Community College located in Pittsfield, MA. He is an active member of Veterans for Peace and Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice.

(I don't hear ANY candidates running for president talking about this illegal unconstitutional "law". It a lot like the obama birth certificate. Nobody wants to admit its illegal or faked as the bo certificate is.) Story Reports