Afghan President Karzai in TV address claims the US is working with the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan

Updated March 11, 2013, 1:22 p.m. ET


Wall Street Journal Online

KABUL—America’s fraught ties with Afghanistan suffered a jarring blow Sunday, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai said during a visit by the new U.S. defense secretary that the Taliban were killing Afghan civilians “in service to America.”

The remarks, in a televised speech hours before Mr. Karzai’s meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, capped a series of confrontations between the Afghan president and the U.S. over his demands to assert Afghan sovereignty and curtail American military operations.

Mr. Karzai met Mr. Hagel a day after suspected Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 18 people at the Ministry of Defense in Kabul and in the eastern province of Khost.

In his address, Mr. Karzai said the U.S. doesn’t want to leave the country after the NATO coalition’s mandate expires at the end of 2014 because it covets Afghan resources and is talking with Taliban leaders behind his back.

“Taliban are every day in talks with America, but in Kabul and Khost they set off bombs to show strength to America,” Mr. Karzai said. “The bombs that went off in Kabul and Khost yesterday were not a show of power to America, but were in service to America…It was in the service of foreigners not withdrawing from Afghanistan.”

U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, who took command of coalition forces last month, called Mr. Karzai’s charges “categorically false.”

“We have fought too hard over the past 12 years, we have shed too much blood over the last 12 years, we have done too much to help the Afghan security forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would ever be to our advantage,” he said.

Mr. Karzai’s remarks blindsided American officials who had hoped to use Mr. Hagel’s two-day visit, his first overseas trip as defense secretary, to shore up fragile relations with the Afghan president as the U.S. ends its longest foreign war.

Though most of the 66,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan are slated to go home next year, the U.S. hopes to leave behind an advisory and counterterrorism force that would support the Afghan government after 2014.


European Pressphoto AgencyAfghan President Hamid Karzai said in a speech Sunday recent Taliban attacks were ‘in service to America.’

American defense officials now have to assess how much damage Mr. Karzai’s allegations will have on their plans, already threatened by discord over whether to grant immunity from prosecution to U.S. troops and by the Afghan leader’s refusal to negotiate with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The war against the Taliban has claimed the lives of 2,179 American service members since 2001, says the casualty tracking website While the U.S. has held talks with the Taliban in the past, contacts were stalled by the Taliban’s refusal to negotiate directly with Kabul.

Mr. Karzai’s speech on Sunday sparked some frank exchanges during Mr. Karzai’s dinner at the presidential palace with Mr. Hagel, Gen. Dunford and other officials from both nations, U.S. officials said. Mr. Hagel “struck the right balance between expressing support for Afghanistan and strongly pushing back on wildly inaccurate claims,” one U.S. official said.

After the dinner, Mr. Hagel offered a muted public response to Mr. Karzai’s comments that came in contrast to the forceful defense from Gen. Dunford. “I told the president it was not true that the United States was unilaterally working with the Taliban,” Mr. Hagel told reporters.

The defense secretary suggested that the Afghan president might have been baiting America to cultivate support from anti-Western forces in the politically fractured country. Mr. Karzai’s term expires next year, and the field of potential successors is wide open, ranging from his brother and other allies to bitter political foes. “I was once a politician, so I can understand the kind of pressures that especially leaders of countries are always under, so I would hope that, again, we can move forward—and I have confidence that we will,” Mr. Hagel said.

The Afghan president’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, said the Afghan leader used the occasion to complain about civilian casualties of U.S. operations and the detentions of Afghan citizens.

In particular, Mr. Faizi said, Mr. Karzai raised the issue of an engineering student who, he said, had been seized illegally at Kandahar University by an Afghan militia working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Karzai mentioned in his speech that he was up until as late as midnight on Saturday to win the student’s release; on Sunday, he issued a decree banning foreign forces from entering universities and detaining Afghan students.

The CIA declined to comment on the matter.

“Such incidents, if they continue, are a clear breach of Afghan national sovereignty, and will create anger among the people,” Mr. Faizi said. “Any kind of bilateral relations should be based on respect of sovereignty of the two nations.”

Mr. Karzai gained power following the U.S. ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001, and initially enjoyed close ties with the U.S., holding weekly videoconference calls with President George W. Bush.

These relations deteriorated during the 2009 Afghan presidential elections, after which Mr. Karzai accused some Obama administration officials of scheming to oust him.

In previous statements, Mr. Karzai also alleged that the U.S. was secretly flying insurgents into northern Afghanistan in helicopters, as part of a plan to destabilize the country, and once even threatened to join the Taliban himself.

Mr. Karzai and Mr. Hagel have a strained personal history. In 2008, Mr. Hagel joined fellow Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry for a turbulent dinner in which they pressed the Afghan president to seriously tackle corruption in his government. When Mr. Karzai dismissed the concerns as unfounded, Mr. Biden stormed out of the meeting, throwing down his napkin.

Mr. Hagel’s restrained comments on the Afghan president Sunday suggested that U.S. leaders recognize that they need Mr. Karzai’s cooperation to complete the withdrawal of U.S. troops and equipment. Military analysts said Mr. Karzai might be trying to challenge Mr. Hagel, who has orders from President Barack Obama to quickly end the war.

“President Karzai has a history of testing new [coalition] commanders to see what the response is to his demands,” said Kimberly Kagan, founder of the Institute for the Study of War who has consulted with the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have envisaged that NATO allies would make up a large part of the residual force after 2014. Mr. Karzai, however, on Sunday reiterated his opposition to any deal with NATO as a whole, saying nations wanting to keep troops here would need to negotiate directly with Kabul.

“If you want to stay beyond 2014, all of you separately need to sign agreements with the Afghan people,” Mr. Karzai said Sunday. “Limited numbers, in a location we chose and under our conditions and framework, with respect for our laws, our sovereignty, our traditions and culture.”

Few, if any, Western allies would consider contributing troops outside the NATO framework, diplomats say. “They want us out, that is for sure,” a Western official said. “They feel that we are part of the problem.”

Despite these tensions, Gen. Dunford defended U.S.-Afghan relations, especially between military leaders of the two countries, as dynamic partnerships that can be the “shock absorbers” through turbulent times. “We don’t have a broken relationship,” he said. “We don’t have a lack of trust. We have a relationship that can actually absorb this tension as we work through difficult issues.”

But Mr. Karzai’s Sunday speech was only one such shock to the relationship. It followed the U.S.’s abrupt cancellation of its planned handover of the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram Air Field, and Mr. Karzai’s demand that U.S. Special Operations forces leave the strategic province of Wardak near Kabul.

Following Mr. Karzai’s speech, Mr. Hagel also canceled a planned joint news conference with the Afghan leader at the presidential palace. U.S. officials said this was because of security concerns that rippled across Kabul in the wake of Saturday’s bombings.

U.S. bases in the capital were on heightened alert. Mr. Hagel previously canceled scheduled visits to the Ministry of Defense—site of Saturday’s Kabul bombing—and the Interior Ministry. Instead, he met with the two ministers at alternative locations in the city.

—Habib Khan Totakhil, Julian E. Barnes and Siobhan Gorman contributed to this article.



Afghan Leader Alleges U.S., Taliban Colluding

Afghan President Karzai Claims U.S. Colluding With Taliban Terrorists


Former White House Press secretary Gibbs admits he was told to lie

Sen. Paul Distracts Public While House Approves $982 Billion Budget Increase

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
March 9, 2013

After the filibuster spectacle on Capitol Hill by Senator Rand Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote another letter wherein he retracted his original statement concerning Obama’s legality to use drones in targeted assassination of American citizens on US soil. Holder said: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question, ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

Senator Rand Paul Second Letter by

[Sen. Paul did vote against confirming John Brennan as Director of Central Intelligence – see the entire senate vote here.]

… On a broadcast on FoxNews, Paul said that Holder explained that the President does not have the right to kill unarmed and non-combative Americans on American soil.

Paul claimed a victory with this “answer”; however it is glossed over in the mainstream media that the response from Holder did not clarify who is a combatant.

Based on the National Defense Authorization Act, anyone can be suspected of being a combatant by having alleged ties to a terrorist group.

Just recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have said that constitutionalists and anti-government groups are extremists and liken to being terrorist organizations.

While both the mainstream and alternative media were focused on the dog-and-pony show conducted by Paul and Holder regarding drones, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would grant funding to the federal government through September of 2013 while a supposed major budget cut is running rampant, stifling the economic stance of the US government.

House Representative Harold Rogers [R-KY], head of the Appropriations Committee introduced this resolution to the tune of $982 billion (just shy of 1 trillion dollars) to avoid a near complete governmental shutdown at the end of this month.The very same day of Paul’s 13 hour filibuster, the House secured funding for the federal government at the expense of taxpayers and under cover of a 13 hour distraction.

While the rest of the country faces sequestering measures, the US Military Industrial Complex will be well funded to conduct their business.

The Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Planned Parenthood would continue to remain funded with that nearly $1 trillion appropriated by the House resolution.

Tamara Keith of NPR explains: “Democrats and the White House have made it clear they don’t like this bill because it locks in across-the-board spending cuts and only gives additional budget flexibility to the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments. Senate leaders say they plan to make changes to allow other agencies more flexibility as well. But they aren’t planning to undo the sequester cuts, which means a fight that would threaten a government shutdown is unlikely.”

John Brennan, the Assassination Czar, was sworn in this week as the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by Vice President Joe Biden. The Obama camp made a special note that Brennan took his oath of office over “an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

The symbolic tone surrounding the document Brennan swore allegiance to was the version of the Constitution prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights; “which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification  by states.”original

The statement here is that Brennan swore to uphold the rights of Americans except their freedom of speech, right to bear arms and right to not have to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Considering Brennan’s history with drones and their current application by the DHS of drones to be used as surveillance tools on unsuspecting Americans, the ceremony is fitting.

DHS have secured unmanned aerial vehicles that are equipped to conduct surveillance, intercept cellular communications and determine if the human target is armed.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has obtained performance specification documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that confirm “the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is operating drones in the United States capable of intercepting electronic communications.”

The documents also confirm that the drones “have the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.” DHS drones were designed to “be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and “be capable of marking a target into a retrievable database.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder and vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) responded to the DHS drone capabilities: “I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners. This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.”

The California Assembly, specifically members Jeff Gorell and Steven Bradford, have collaborated to restrict the use of drones by the local police and state officials.

Gorell and Bradford have introduced AB 1327 which states emphatically that the law enforcement utilizing drones for surveillance must have obtained a warrant prior to deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles.

The bill states:

(b) A law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, if it has a reasonable expectation that the unmanned aircraft system will collect evidence relating to criminal activity and if it has obtained a warrant based on probable cause pursuant to this code.
(c) A law enforcement agency, without obtaining a warrant, may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, in emergency situations, including, but not limited to, fires, hostage crises, and search and rescue operations on land or water.

Should a private person choose to use a drone for surveillance, they will be “subject to Section 14350 or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, shall not use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for the purpose of surveillance of another person without that person’s consent.”

While the reality and potential of drones flying in US skies is becoming part of a national debate, the US Air Force have suddenly stopped posting statistics on drone strikes in the Middle East, specifically Afghanistan.

Statistics from last month conveniently went missing when the total analysis was published for the public to see.

Both the Pentagon and Air Force Central Command declined to publically comment on the change. However this change coincided with Paul’s filibuster of Brennan over Holder’s comments that the President could strike American citizens with “lethal force” (using drones) on US soil.

Editor’s note – Rand Paul authored an op ed piece entitled “My filibuster was just the beginning” on March 8.  In this piece he wrote, “The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers. The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants [bold italics added]. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions.”  By writing this Sen. Paul was conceding that some US citizens may be declared combatants or enemy combatants.  There is no constitutional basis to declare US citizens “combatants” or enemy combatants since there is no constitutional basis for war.  War may only be declared by Congress under Article I section 8 clause 11 – the “War on Terror” is illegal and a hoax.  Furthermore if the USA was involved in a legal war, i.e., if Congress did declare war against a nation or nations and US citizens aligned with enemy nations against the US, those so accused would still be guaranteed a right to an open trial under Article III section 3 clause 1.



The True Meaning Behind Holder’s Response to Rand Paul

Christian, Please Wake Up!

Chuck Baldwin

What is it going to take for pastors and churches to wake up and realize that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state? Ladies and gentlemen, the long-standing veneration for law and order does not include blind submission to governmental abuse of power. Yet, it seems that very few Christian conservatives are even paying attention to what is happening before their very eyes.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has purchased over 2 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition (enough to wage a 30-year war); the DHS has purchased over 7,000 AR-15s. The DHS calls them Personal Defense Weapons (PDW). These are the same semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines that when you and I buy them are called “assault rifles.” Plus, the DHS has purchased over 2,700 armored vehicles, the same kind that the US military uses in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense (DOD) calls them MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected). They carry .50 caliber weapons that fire from inside the vehicle. The vehicle itself is impervious to mines and small-arms fire. They are the vehicle of choice for our combat troops in the Middle East.

See this report at Investor’s Business Daily:

DHS Buys Special Armored Fighting Vehicles

Pray tell, why does the DHS need that kind of firepower? And who do they anticipate using all of this firepower on?

If all of that isn’t disconcerting enough, we have now learned that the DHS has spent 2 million dollars on producing shooting targets of American gun owners. These are called “non-traditional threat” targets. They include pregnant women, elderly citizens, mothers in playgrounds, and even little children. These targets are produced by a company called Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. The company calls these targets “No More Hesitation” targets.

To see a report and photos of the targets, go to:

DHS Supplier Provides Shooting Targets Of American Gun Owners

What is the DHS planning to do? Turn the entire continental United States into one big giant Waco?

Can one imagine the reaction by the DHS if a company was producing shooting targets depicting law enforcement officers?

I guess another question I have is who are the people whose faces appear on these targets? Did they know they were being photographed to be used on a shooting target? Or were their images photoshopped? Whose mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, daughter, son, and child are being used for these targets? I wonder how many Americans whose loved ones appear on these targets know that the photographs of their family members are being used as targets for DHS agents to shoot at. And how would any of you like it if those targets bore the photographs of YOUR loved ones?

This is bizarre! If this wasn’t so very, very real, one would think that it was one big practical joke. But it is no joke!

While our own domestic federal police department (a blatantly unconstitutional entity, by the way) is arming itself to the teeth, our President and Vice President are in a full-court press trying to disarm the American citizenry of their most effective and efficient self-defense tool: the semi-automatic rifle. Are we supposed to believe that all of this is mere coincidence? It is true that I was born in the morning, but it was not yesterday morning!

Adding to our cause for concern is the way our veterans are being treated (or should I say mistreated) by the federal government. As far back as 2009, returning Iraq and Afghan War veterans have been labeled as potentially “dangerous extremists” by the DHS (along with people who are pro-life; people who support Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly; people who believe the US should get out of the UN; people who are opposed to the “New World Order;” people who believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ; etc.). Today, more and more veterans are being labeled with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and other such names, and being told that they are not fit to possess a firearm.

In addition, under President Obama’s recent Executive Order, physicians, both military and civilian, are quizzing their patients regarding firearms and have the potential authority to write a derogatory diagnosis about a patient that could be used as an excuse for the government to deny his or her right to keep and bear arms. (If you have a physician that asks you any questions regarding firearms, my advice is to find another doctor immediately!)

My friends, our country is being transformed into an Orwellian society right before our eyes! All the while, most pastors and churches seem to be completely oblivious to it. And, of course, most of the reporters and journalists in the mainstream media are nothing more than compliant propagandists for anything Big-Government. The same is true for most educators in our major colleges and universities.

But it is the apathy, indifference, and blindness of our pastors and churches that is the most disconcerting. The most influential group of leaders in America is still the pastors–the trend away from traditional churches notwithstanding. There are over 300,000 evangelical churches in the United States. Can one imagine what would happen in this country if half of these pastors would get up in their pulpits this Sunday and sound the clarion call to stand up and fight these insidious encroachments against our liberties? What if 25% would? What would happen if only 10% would rise up and take a stand?

Dear Christian friend, how can you stay in a church where the pastor will not take a stand for your liberties? How can you give such a church your tithes and offerings? Do you not realize that any pastor and church that refuses to fight and protect your liberties is helping to put the shackles of tyranny and oppression around the necks of your families?

Regardless of how sound you believe your pastor to be doctrinally, or how educated he is, or how much Hebrew and Greek he knows, or how warm and caring he is, or how much you personally like him, if he is not willing to take a public stand for your liberties, he is a willing accomplice to the demise of our republic and the rise of totalitarianism in this land–as surely as the pastors of Germany were accomplices to the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich!

Christian, please wake up! A police state is being constructed before your very eyes. Your liberties are being systematically expunged. While you are waving your hands and praising Jesus, the enemies of liberty are laying the nets and traps around your homes and communities that are going to be used to enslave you. While you are fixated on your pastor and church staying doctrinally pure, the barbed-wire fences are being built around the camps in which your children and grandchildren will be incarcerated. While you sit comfortably on the padded pews in your heated and air conditioned church sanctuary and listen to an inspiring sermon that makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, the sacred principles that protect your right to freely worship, and speak, and defend your family are disappearing.

Beyond that, not only are many thousands of pastors not resisting this emerging police state; they are actively and enthusiastically joining with the big-government toadies in helping to eviscerate our freedoms. Is your pastor one of these? If so, you might as well be listening to sermons written by Joseph Goebbels.

Big-Government propagandists love to couch submission to oppression under the guise of patriotic duty to law and order. But submission to oppression is not patriotic; it is imbecilic! And make no mistake about it: the attempt to outlaw, ban, and confiscate our firearms, especially our semi-automatic rifles, has nothing to do with law and order; it has everything to do with overt oppression. To such an egregious encroachment against our liberty there can be no submission, only determined, resolute resistance.

With would-be tyrants attacking our liberties with such a vengeance, and with such a ubiquitous display of apathy and indifference by most pastors and churches, my constitutional attorney son and I have written a brand new book entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book is sure to be a blockbuster!

There are numerous books out there which examine the right to keep and bear arms that are written from a constitutional perspective, but we know of no modern book that takes an in-depth scriptural look at the right to keep and bear arms. Well, that’s what our new book does. It is a thorough examination of both the Old and New Testament regarding the right of self-defense. In this book, Tim and I show conclusively that nowhere does the Bible teach Christians (or anyone else, Christian or not) should surrender their arms. Nowhere does the Bible teach Christians (or anyone else) are obligated to obey the laws of men that would deny a man his God-given, Natural right of self-defense. NOWHERE!

The book will be released very soon. We are taking pre-orders now. Orders are coming in very fast. To be assured of getting your copy, I suggest you pre-order the book now. Go to:

Keep Your Arms

All this talk about submitting to the government NO MATTER WHAT is simply a bunch of propagandist-hooey! And dear Christian friend, if your pastor is teaching this fallacy, not only is he teaching a serious error, he is an enemy to freedom! Get out of his church immediately! He has sold his soul to tyrants; and he is leading your family into tyranny.

Our country is being turned into a police state. What is it going to take for pastors and churches to awaken to this stark reality? Christian, please wake up!

P.S. To see our list of pastors who are on public record as standing strong for the Second Amendment, go to:

Second Amendment Pastors

If you don’t see your pastor’s name in the list, you might want to ask him why.

The Nature and Direction of the “War on Terror”

The Nature and Direction of the “War on Terror”

By Rocco J. Piserchia

Originally posted on January 13, 2012

The entire premise of the “War on Terror” must be rejected.  First and foremost it’s illegal and therefore illegitimate.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the legal authority to declare war.  Any war that’s undertaken without a declaration of war by Congress is illegal.  This illegal practice of an executive or presidential war has characterized all US wars after World War II.  President Eisenhower committed the US to the Korean War under the authority of the United Nations, not Congress.

Of course it’s absurd to maintain that the “War on Terror” could be legally declared by Congress since it’s impossible to legally declare war on an ideology or, as Ron Paul has stated, a tactic.  Terrorism defined as either as ideology or tactic can not be vanquished by an illegal declaration of war.  (In order to win the “War on Terror” would all references to the words “terror” and “terrorism” need to be removed from every dictionary?) The “War on Terror” is open ended, i.e., no one can proclaim when it will end and what the objectives are. It’s been used as a pretext for illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya.  (The US military has routinely used air drones on targets in Pakistan which is an act of war.)

If you think the war in Afghanistan was justified it was still illegal in that Congress never declared war against Afghanistan. US forces continue to be deployed and engaged in Afghanistan after 10 years yet our nation managed to end World War II within 4 and a half years. Illegal wars often have no clear objectives and therefore may be used as pretext to indefinitely continue hostilities.  Another terrible result of illegal wars is that no clear resolution is ever achieved, i.e., “winning” is elusive if not impossible. When the objectives of a military invasion are intentionally ambiguous the results are also ambiguous.

The fact that the “War on Terror” is ambiguous is intentional.  By claiming that our nation is at war the federal government continues to exercise carte blanche to incrementally nullify the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. All of the unconstitutional executive orders and legislation that began during the Bush administration have been accepted and expanded under the Obama administration. Understanding the illegal and irrational nature of the “War on Terror” helps expose the two party system as a sham. It’s naïve to claim that the Republican Party is to the right of the Democratic Party when the Obama administration has advanced the “War on Terror”. The inherently bogus conflict between the Right and the Left is also evident in that both parties in Congress have passed legislation related to the “War on Terror”.

The Patriot Act was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01.  The Patriot Act was largely written by John Yoo, an attorney with the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush.  Congress was told to pass the Patriot Act even though they had no time to even read, much less understand, the content of it.  Among its provisions we find that any misdemeanor is classified as an act of terrorism:


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping’ and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’;

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

After the Patriot Act other legislation has been passed by Congress including the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.  Central to the mythology of the “War on Terror” is the fluid definition of what constitutes Terror and therefore who may be classified legally as a Terrorist. The Department of Defense (DoD) has trained employees that protest is a low level expression of terrorism. “A multiple choice question included on a Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course required for all DoD personnel asks the following question: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” The correct answer is “protests.”[1]

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) published a report dated 02/20/09, MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement. “According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous “militia member”:

The United Nations

The New World Order

Gun Control

The violation of Posse Comitatus

The Federal Reserve

The Income Tax

The Ammunition and Accountability Act

A possible Constitutional Convention

The North American Union

Universal Service Program

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)


Illegal Immigration” [2]

In March of 2009 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Domestic Extremism Lexicon. “This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States.”[3] In this training document the following terms are listed: alternative media, antiabortion extremism, anti-immigration extremism, direct action (defined as “Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience”), and patriot movement (“also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist”)[4]

President G.W. Bush claimed that he had the authority to declare any US citizen an “enemy combatant” and that any one so classified could be detained indefinitely without a trial by the military.[5]  President Obama continued to claim this dictatorial power and his administration even claimed to have the authority to execute US citizens living abroad merely suspected of terrorism.[6]  It was also disclosed that the Obama administration has a list of US citizens who are targeted for assassination. [7] In September of 2011 President Obama proudly announced that two US citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, were executed by US air strikes in Yemen. [8] “”This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans, and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.” [9]  President Obama’s remarks are Orwellian – the US can execute anyone in the world including US citizens without due process or any disclosure of evidence and this somehow helps “to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.”

The World is a Battlefield

The logical outcome of the “War on Terror” is that the entire world is to be considered a battlefield and therefore anyone accused of terrorism, including US citizens in the USA, are viable targets for indefinite military detention or even execution. The fabricated threat of terrorism is so great there’s no longer the necessity of due process and a jury trial.  This treasonous position was defended by President Obama.[10]  “In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws.” [11] “It is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. [And the FBI says that activists who investigate factory farms can be prosecuted as terrorists.] And see this.”[12]

The position that US citizens may be indefinitely detained without due process by the military has now been legislated in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Congress.[13]  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) looks and sounds crazed when he proclaims on the Senate floor that anyone who requests a lawyer will be told to shut up:

In context Senator Graham said,

“Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it’s the battlefield!… Why would we say that if you’re in Afghanistan, we can blow you up and put you in jail forever, [snip] but if you can make it to America, you’re home free? You can’t be interrogated by our military, or CIA; you get a lawyer and that’s the end of discussion? That’s what you would be doing! That’s crazy! … It is not unfair to… hold American citizens as long as it takes to find intelligence [snip]. When they say, “I want my lawyer”, you tell them, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant.”[14]

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) described what he wants a person accused of terrorism to experience:

“I want that person to be terrified about what’s going to happen to them in American custody. I want them not to know what’s going to happen. I want the terror that they inflict on others to be felt by them as a result of the uncertainty of not knowing … what our interrogators are going to be limited to.” [15]

Senator Lieberman stressed that the greatest threat to the “homeland” are homegrown terrorists who are radicalized Americans.[16]

Senator Lieberman openly rejects the 8th Amendment,

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Senator Lieberman is at least consistent – he has no reason to support the 8th Amendment since he openly rejects the authority of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments:

Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Article III Section III also specifically guarantees a jury trial to any citizen accused of treason.)


The “War on Terror” is a massive and growing hoax.[17] This war is against the American populace and it continues to metastasize as the Constitution is methodically eviscerated and our country is being transitioned into martial law. The entire post 9/11 domestic security apparatus was designed to help erect a police state- the aim was never foreign terrorists.  If the “War on Terror” was valid the border with Mexico would have been secured shortly after 9/11/01. Under both the Republican Bush and Democratic Obama administrations the border with Mexico remains unsecured. However the TSA, as part of DHS, is being expanded beyond airports to rail stations, subways and other points of mass transit.[18] Regardless of presidential executive orders, court decisions or Congressional legislation, no laws that contradict the Constitution are legitimate.  “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” (Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison).

Our Founding Fathers keenly understood liberty as well as tyranny. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin).[19] “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” (Thomas Paine).[20] “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights of the people by the gradual & silent encroachments of those in power than by violent & sudden usurpations.” (James Madison).[21] “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify” (Alexander Hamilton).[22]  May God grant us the wisdom to understand the gravity of our situation and the courage to help restore the Republic.


[1] “Pentagon Multiple Choice: Dissenting Americans are Terrorists” by Kurt Nimmo June 15, 2009

[2] “MY RESPONSE TO M.I.A.C. REPORT”  by Chuck Baldwin; March 24, 2009

[3] Domestic Extremism Lexicon;  26 March 2009; (U) Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

[4] Ibid

[5] “Enemy Combatants” by William Haynes; December 12, 2002; Council on Foreign Relations

[6] “ ‘Permission’ needed to kill U.S. terrorists” by Eli Lake; Thursday, February 4, 2010

[7] “How many Americans are targeted for assassination?” by Glenn Greenwald

Friday, Jun 25, 2010

[8] “Al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen” September 30, 2011 5:02 AM

[9] Ibid

[10] Top Legal Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill [Any American Citizen Without Any Charge and] On His Own Discretion. He Can Jail You Indefinitely On His Own Discretion” Posted on December 21, 2011

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] “Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial” by Chris McGreal

Wednesday 14 December 2011

[14] “Lindsey Graham: Want a lawyer? Shut Up.” by Jennifer Briney; Dec 1, 2011

[15] S. 1867 (NDAA): Secret Torture Provisions For Home Grown Terrorists

[16] Ibid at 4:04; Sen. John McCain admitted that US citizens are subject to indefinite military detention without due process when questioned by Sen. Rand Paul.

[17] “The War on Terror is a Hoax” by Paul Craig Roberts; February 4, 2009  and

“Neocons Admit that “War On Terror” Is a Hoax”; Wednesday, May 7, 2008

[18] “TSA screenings aren’t just for airports anymore” by Brian Bennett; December 20, 2011,0,3213641.story

[19] The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 3 (107) 1759 [date of quote]

[20] 1791 [date of quote] Dissertation on First Principles of Government

[21] 1788 [date of quote] Virginia Convention

[22] 1788 [date of quote] Federalist No. 33