Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?


By Michael Snyder

Originally posted on May 18th, 2014

White House MeetingWhen the U.S. military “liberates” a nation, shouldn’t it result in more liberty, freedom and peace for the people living there?  Instead, we find just the opposite.  In fact, in every single case since 9/11, when the U.S. military has “liberated” a nation it has resulted in the persecution of Christians in that country becoming much worse.  In areas where we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and where thousands of precious American lives were sacrificed, churches are regularly being bombed, Christians are being brutally beheaded, and laws have been passed to make it illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.  If we were not even able to provide the most basic of liberties and freedoms to the people living in those nations, what in the world did we actually accomplish by “liberating” them?

Just look at what has happened in Afghanistan.  We have been at war in Afghanistan for more than a dozen years, and yet things are so bad for Christians in that country at this point that there is not a single church left

The supposedly “moderate” Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan’s last Christian church.

We find a similar story in Iraq.  It is estimated that before the invasion, there were up to 2 million Christians living in Iraq.  Now that number is down to less than 450,000, and it is falling fast.

In fact, things are so dire for Iraq’s Christian community that some Iraqi Christian leaders are warning that Christians may soon become “extinct” in that nation…

As the mass exodus of Iraq’s Christians continues, so does the call for ending the plight of those who have remained. Like Iraq’s ancient Jewish community before them, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities may soon cease to exist.

The disappearance of Iraq’s religious minorities has been a troubling trend since the US-led invasion in 2003, and it has threatened to end the cultural diversity of Iraq. As the violence in the country spikes and religious intolerance grows, many Christians, Yazidis, Mandaeans and other minority community members are leaving the country.

Last week, the head of the Iraqi Catholic Church sent a chilling warning that Iraq’s 2,000-year-old Christian community is on the brink of extinction as new waves of Christians take the journey of exodus.

It is estimated that the Iraq war cost U.S. taxpayers more than 2 trillion dollars.

We spent more than a million dollars on one soccer field alone (which has now turned to dust).

In the end, what did we actually accomplish?

The Obama administration likes to brag about how it got rid of Qaddafi and “liberated” Libya, but now al-Qaeda is in control of much of the country and things are much worse for Christians than ever before

Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have indeed suffered extreme persecution. Churches have been bombed; Christians have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert); and nuns have been threatened.

In Syria, the Obama administration is shamelessly allying with radical al-Qaeda jihadists in a desperate attempt to overthrow the Assad regime.

As these jihadists torture, behead and even crucify Christian believers, the mainstream media in the United States is virtually silent about it.

Why is the media being so quiet?

Well, because exposing what is going on would make the Obama administration look bad.

Those carrying out this persecution of Christians in Syria are being directly funded and aided by the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia.  For much more on what is going on in Syria, please see my previous article entitled “Why Is The Media Silent About The Crucifixion Of Christians By Radical Jihadists?

And of course it is not just in the Middle East where this kind of persecution of Christians is taking place.

While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department refused to label Boko Haram as a terrorist organization.

But now the whole world is talking about Boko Haram.  This group has attacked more than 700 churches in Nigeria over the past seven years, and this has resulted in a massive exodus of Christians from northern Nigeria to southern Nigeria…

Christian groups estimate that up to a quarter of the 4,000 people killed by Boko Haram since 2009 have been Christians, and more than 700 churches have been attacked in the last seven years alone, according to the Nigerian Catholic Bishop’s Conference. Across the troubled north-east, many Christian neighbourhoods are now ghost towns as tens of thousands of residents flee south. It is one of the biggest Christian exoduses of the century, yet largely unremarked outside of Nigeria.

It is hard to put into words how brutal Boko Haram can be.  As a recent article in the Telegraph described, the persecution of Christians in northern Nigeria by Boko Haram  has been absolutely relentless…

Arriving at St Joseph’s church in the Nigerian town of Gashua, Father John Bakeni knew he was taking on a tough posting. A flyblows settlement near the northern border with Niger, his new parish was smack in the heart of Boko Haram territory, and in the previous three years, all but a fraction of its 3,000-strong Christian minority had fled.

Sent by his bishop to show that the diocese had not deserted the town, he spent much of the following year trying to reassure the 200 remaining parishioners. But nearly every time he ventured from his rectory, a reminder would await him of the difficulty of his mission.

“Several times a week I would find a dead animal had been thrown in the compound, usually a chicken, goat or sheep, but sometimes dead cats too,” said Fr Bakeni, 38. “Stones would get thrown at the church almost every day, and sometimes also people would bang the gates and shout: ‘Infidel, we are going to kill you.’

So why has the Obama administration been so hesitant to speak out against Boko Haram until now?

In fact, although most Americans do not realize this, the Obama administration has been quite supportive of Boko Haram in the past.  Obama even actually threatened the Nigerian government with economic sanctions in 2013 in an attempt to keep them from cracking down on Boko Haram.

What in the world was the Obama administration thinking?

Whose side are they on anyway?

If you love liberty and freedom, you should be deeply troubled by the spread of groups such as Boko Haram.

Just look at what is happening in another part of Africa where jihadists have gained control.  In Sudan, a pregnant woman was recently sentenced to death by hanging for marrying a Christian man…

A Sudanese woman doctor who married a Christian man and who was convicted earlier this week on charges of “apostasy” was sentenced to death on Thursday, judicial officials said.

According to the Sudanese officials, 26-year-old Meriam Ibrahim, whose father was Muslim, was convicted on Sunday and given four days to repent and escape death. She was sentenced after that grace period expired, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The BBC reported the woman’s death by hanging will not be carried out until two years after the birth of her child.

This kind of tyranny should not be tolerated in today’s world.

But instead, the U.S. government seems to be helping to spread it.

US Set to Launch ‘Iraq, The Sequel’, in Syria

Saturday August 24, 2013


If you liked the run up to the US attack on Iraq, with the lurid fictional tales of mobile chemical weapons labs and Saddam’s nukes, you will love “Iraq, The Sequel”, currently unfolding in Syria. It is everything the interventionists have been hoping for: a heady brew of Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya all rolled into one. The possibility for an infinitely more toxic conflagration is exponentially higher, to boot, adding for the interventionists much excitement to the mix.

Here is the latest:

A fourth US warship capable of launching the type of cruise missiles that turned Libya to rubble and paved the way for al-Qaeda affiliates to take control of that country is now rushing to the waters off of Syria, ready to unleash destruction. Chuck Hagel, who some antiwar commentators foolishly believed would put an end to Washington’s military adventurism, is feverishly preparing plans for President Obama to attack. The media worldwide,  interventionist to the core, is pushing willing leaders in the US, France, and the UK to finally treat Syria to another devastating “liberation.”

What has prompted this sudden dramatic move just over the past few days toward a Western invasion of Syria? A pretext. A claimed chemical attack near Damascus that has produced, according to an estimate from Médecins Sans Frontières, perhaps some 300 deaths. It is unclear whether a bona fide chemical attack has taken place, and it is even more unclear who might be responsible should the attack indeed be the work of some chemical agent. Yet all of a sudden another Washington/Paris/London war is to be set in motion. How banal the triggers for war have become. Almost like a video game.

Somehow we are supposed to believe that within 72 hours after the arrival of a UN chemical weapons inspection team to assess — with the Syrian government’s cooperation — the sites of previous claimed chemical weapons attacks, that same Syrian government would launch a chemical weapon attack on civilians just miles from where the UN inspectors are staying. The UN inspectors were there on invitation from the Syrian government and that same government would launch chemicals right into their neighborhood.

Unless Assad is indeed suicidally insane, which he has given no indication of being heretofore, it quite simply makes no sense. Why risk the overt wrath of the entire rest of the world — alienating even your final allies in Iran and Russia — for so measly a gain: killing 300 civilians in a war to the death against US/Saudi/Turk supported jihadists? There is no military justification and no justification at all short of the Assad clan being a Middle Eastern form of the Manson Family. Is that the argument?

As the always thoughtful Moon of Alabama blog points out, the hypocrisy of the West is stunning. Based exclusively on reporting by the Syrian opposition itself, some sort of substance has killed anywhere from 100-360 people outside Damascus, and the West is ready for war. Meanwhile, just over a week ago, the Egyptian military massacred more than a thousand unarmed Muslim Brotherhood protestors in Egypt and the West not only did not condemn the act but has endorsed further crackdowns against supporters of the duly elected government in Egypt — in the name of democracy. 

Thousands killed by the US allied Egyptian military is glossed over; dubious unconfirmed reports from highly biased sources, of a hundred or so killed in a war that has claimed by some estimates 100,000 lives, and the warships steam toward a date with destruction. Why are these 100 killed any different than those thousands of Syrians killed with CIA supplied weapons in case after documented case of Syrian insurgent atrocities? No answer.

Credible reports coming from the pro-government press in Syria that the rebels have time and time again — including just yesterday — used crude chemical agents in their fight to overthrow the government are routinely ignored by the same Western media that dutifully reports every utterance from the rebels’ own mouthpiece, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

However, the claims that chemical agents were used has come under very skeptical scrutiny from those who understand such matters. Although the press with its signature lack of curiosity is reporting breathlessly on the preparations for war (it’s good for ratings and for the profits of their military-industrial complex invested corporate owners), there are thankfully still some media outlets willing to consider those odd things called facts.

The Israeli Haaretz newspaper is one of those, and it reports (via Sic Semper Tyrannis blog) that those who know a bit about chemical warfare are unconvinced by Syrian insurgent reports of chemical weapons use. 

Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination. Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.” 

Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in ,and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.” Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?

Tomahawk missiles may be flying by the time you read this article. But do not make the mistake of believing the lies being told to make the case for another war. This is another war based entirely on lies and the result will be the destruction of the people of Syria. Another war crime under cover of “humantiarian intervention.”


“Doctors” Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists


August 25, 2013 – (Tony Cartalucci) The “evidence” upon which the West is propping up its narrative of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians hinges so far entirely on claims made by “Doctors Without Borders.” In the New York Times article, “Signs of Chemical Attack Detailed by Aid Group,” it is reported:

An international aid group said Saturday that medical centers it supported near the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus received more than 3,000 patients showing symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic nerve agents on the morning of the reported attack.

Of those, 355 died, said the group, Doctors Without Borders.

The statement is the first issued by an international organization working in Syria about the attack on Wednesday in the suburbs northeast of Damascus, the capital.

While it is often described by the Western media as “independent,” nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, Doctors Without Borders is fully funded by the very same corporate financier interests behind Wall Street and London’s collective foreign policy, including regime change in Syria and neighboring Iran. Doctors Without Borders’ own annual report (2010 report can be accessed here), includes as financial donors, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, and a myriad of other corporate-financier interests.  Doctors Without Borders also features bankers upon its Board of Advisers including Elizabeth Beshel Robinson of Goldman Sachs. 

Complicating further Doctors Without Borders so-called “independ” and “aid” claims is the fact that their medical facilities are set up in terrorist held regions of Syria, especially along Syria’s northern border with NATO-member Turkey.  In an interview with NPR, Doctors Without Borders’ Stephen Cornish revealed the nature of his organization’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, where he explains that aid is being sent to regions outside of the Syrian government’s control, and that his organization is in fact setting up facilities in these areas. Cornish admits [emphasis added]:

Over the past months, we’ve had a surgery that was opened inside a cave. We’ve had another that was opened in a chicken farm, a third one in a house. And these structures, we’ve tried to outfit them as best as we can with enough modern technology and with full medical teams. They originally were dealing mainly with combatant injuries and people who were – civilians who were directly affected by the conflict.

In other words, the Wall Street-funded organization is providing support for militants armed and funded by the West and its regional allies, most of whom are revealed to be foreign fighters, affiliated with or directly belonging to Al Qaeda and its defacto political wing, the Muslim Brotherhood. This so-called “international aid” organization is in actuality yet another cog in the covert military machine being turned against Syria and serves the role as a medical battalion.  

The “hospitals” in Damascus being supported by Doctors Without Borders are in areas now under threat of being retaken by government forces, and it’s these facilities that the Western media is drawing on for “evidence” that first, a chemical attack took place, and second, that it was the government who carried it out. What the Western media is not telling their audiences, is that even Doctors Without Borders admits their own team members are not present at these medical facilities and have only been sending supplies to them – in other words, this evidence is hearsay emanating from terrorist held areas, merely dressed up and spun as actual evidence from a so-called “reputable” international organization.

In Doctors Without Borders’ own official statement, it was reported that: 

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.

It was further explained that:

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.

It is most likely hoped that the vast majority of those reading their news simply take the compromised Western media for their word and never bother to read what Doctors Without Borders actually is doing in Syria or what  they even really said regarding the most recent incident. A similar routine was used in Libya where Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International spent their legitimacy attempting to create a pretext for Western military intervention there

[From the NY Times, “Doctors Without Borders said it could not confirm what substances caused the symptoms it reported Saturday, or who was responsible for the attack, but its report appears to lend credibility to other accounts by witnesses and to the opposition’s estimates of the dead.”]


U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday… (May 6, 2013) Source

The Response of the Government to Terrorism is the Loss of our Liberties

Rocco J. Piserchia

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 the federal government instituted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and passed the Patriot Act.  No one in the military or any of the US intelligence agencies was arrested or even demoted for criminal negligence.  Instead the federal government has continued to implement a domestic police state.  For those who question this much evidence exists.  Two points should suffice.  1.)The 2012 National defense Authorization Act violated the US Constitution  by claiming that any US citizen anywhere in the world who is declared an enemy combatant loses his right to due process and may be indefinitely detained or executed without a jury trial.  The President currently has a hit list of alleged terrorists that may include US citizens – anyone of this list is subject to execution based upon secret evidence held by the US President. Anwar al-Awlaki and  his 16 year old son were US citizens who were executed by separate drone attacks in Yemen.  2.) In 2008 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was amended to enable the federal government to record any digital communication without a warrant. Every phone call made by a land line or cell as well as every email or any other digital communication is subject to being recorded by the government without a warrant. Obama voted for this bill as a Senator and has continued to support it as President.

After the Boston Marathon terror attack we saw martial law declared for Boston and surrounding towns – random illegal searches at gun point occurred. Both the FBI and the CIA have admitted that the alleged terrorists were under their surveillanceHowever there will be no investigation into criminal negligence of the FBI and CIA.  Neither will anyone in the FBI or CIA be charged with any type of criminal negligence.  Instead the result be to further erode what’s left of our liberties.  Case in point – Rep. Peter King (R-NY) wants more cameras for surveillance of the public.  The solution of the government is for the corrupt power of the state to grow and the liberties of the individual to be diminished.  The colossal hoax of the illegal “War on Terror” is being used to create the pretext for perpetual war and to incrementally construct a domestic police state.  Our Founding Fathers knew that perpetual war can not coexist with individual liberty.

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

James Madison (1751 – 1836)

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

http://www.infowars.com/pentagon-multiple-choice-dissenting-americans-are-terrorists/ 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 http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html

[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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

[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  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0wpAcovRFk

[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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbwmqq-6Y4&feature=related

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

http://www.infowars.com/the-war-on-terror-is-a-hoax/  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 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.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