America, we have an enormous problem. And, it’s a quickly expanding one. Fueled by the palpable fear of We-the-People that is now observably apparent from arrogant elected members of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government, Orwellian bills denying the American people their Constitutionally protected rights are now being routinely crafted and passed by an increasingly draconian “ruling—not governing—political class.”
For the first time in the history of the United States of America, its people are being reigned over and reined in by thoroughly totalitarian and an almost completely corrupt set of individuals…individuals whom we elected.
The USA has been heading for Leftist rule for many decades. The markedly minority Marxists and Maoists have been incessantly and, for years, feverishly working to take over our country and install a Stalinist/Hitlerian-styled government. In fact, in 2010 at least 70 members (we suspect there are probably more) of the US Democrat Party were listed as members of the American Socialist Party. But, this is the first time they have claimed the unconditional power to do so.
In the past, we were able to keep these subversive and patently destructive elements at bay. The way in which we were able to effect our continued survival as a free country was via the Republican Party. Tragically, those days appear to be gone. The “Republican Establishment” (aka “Rockefeller Republicans,” Global Elitists or New World Order followers) is now firmly in control of the GOP and it has no intention of releasing its iron grip.
Note: Leftists are leftists wherever they deign to appear.
Recently, leftist John McCain (R-AZ)—one of the GOP “Sleeper Cell” members?—partnered with leftist Carl Levin (D-MI) in greatly increasing the Executive branch’s power over the American people. The ‘McCain-Levin US citizen Imprisonment Bill’ effectively does away with the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process (under the law)” clause which mandates: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Obama signed the bill as quickly as possible and then immediately issued a signing statement outlining his new powers. In it, he states: “I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.”
In other words, although Section 1022 provides a bare skeleton structure (one sentence) “protection” for US citizens and legal resident aliens, Obama claims he can (and I suspect will soon) affect its subordination-to-his-will and use the “national security” excuse to eliminate due process for those who oppose him and his policies. He claimed this “power” with his signing statement. And yet, The Republicans in Congress (even those who falsely represented themselves as being “conservative”) went along with and voted for this tyrannical legislation. Sadly, even my representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) voted for it as well as the extreme H.R. 347 that not only says protestors may not protest any government official within the confines of now “restricted” government buildings but, apparently, gives the Secret Service (SS) the power to say that wherever the POTUS is located (think Obama) will be designated as a restricted area in which no “free” anti-Obama-speech shall be allowed.
To be fair, I emailed Pearce’s Press Secretary Jamie Dickerson and was provided with his position statement on HR 1540: “There were also important objections on the conservative side to this bill, dealing specifically with whether or not the provision in section 1022 excluding American citizens from the “covered persons” language went far enough. This was discussed thoroughly in the Republican Conference before the bill went to the floor for debate. Two of my colleagues, one of whom sits on the Armed Services Committee, had objections to the language.
“However, after consulting with the Chairman on protection of civil liberties, and getting a supportive response that the Chairman would work in the future to assure our rights are not violated, both Congressmen voted for it. I listened to all objections, from constituents and other Members of the House. I read the language personally many times, and asked my staff to research every objection brought to our attention. We concluded, after many internal discussions and hours of research, that section 1022 sufficiently protected our liberties.”
Hmmm. Here is how the protection of liberties (in Section 1022) statement reads: “Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.” That’s it—-somewhat nebulous (the word “requirement” does not necessarily restrict it from being used and “inapplicable” will apparently be overridden at the whim of Obama). This is, also, the section to which Obama claims “broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories.”
Then, there is the passed in secret HR 347, which restricts free speech (First Amendment being summarily dismantled) to the point of its being denied. Mr. Dickman’s response is: “We’re still gathering information on the articles constituents have sent, but our interpretation of the accusations in the articles and the Judiciary Committee staff who drafted the bill conclude that the accusations are inaccurate. The bill does not change Secret Service practices from the past. Again, we are still gathering information, but our position on this bill is the same as it was three weeks ago when it came up for a vote.”
Rep. Pearce is not unique in his support of both of these bills. Most in Congress voted to pass both of them. He is just one of the latest apparent casualties to shed himself of the restrictions of working for the people of his district and our country. I strongly suspect this is to protect themselves from the active electorate who now sees that Obama and his supplicant—on both sides of the aisle—Congress are working only to enrich themselves. However, none of them would need said protection from the US citizenry if they actually listened to and abided by the directions from their respective constituencies.
If, in 2012, we do not elect true and verifiable Constitutionalists to replace many of our fallen brethren we as a free (the few vestiges that are still left) country and people are finished. Most of it is already gone. Either we vote in a majority of Constitutionalists or we can kiss ourselves goodbye. By the way, is there a Constitutional Conservative slated to run against Speaker Boehner in Ohio and Sen. McConnell in Kentucky? Just asking.
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” - John Adams
Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve’s op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement