Saturday, 9 November 2013

Fwd: [LeftLibertarian2] Remy - Healthcare Mash

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

ACA Supporters Must Admit That They Are Taxing the Uninsured


ACA Supporters Must Admit That They Are Taxing the Uninsured
By Randy Barnett
November 5, 2013

Is Obamacare enforced by a tax or a penalty? In the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration claimed that the "penalty" enforcing the individual responsibility requirement was a tax.  Proposals by anxious Democrat Senators, many in vulnerable seats, to delay the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act presents a golden opportunity for the government to finally state on the record how Obamacare works: is it a tax, or a penalty?

Tonight at 9:10pm ET on the John Batchelor Show, I will discuss Josh Blackman's and my USA Today op-ed in which we urge Congress to either admit that Obamacare imposed a tax on the uninsured, and bear the political consequences of that decision, or reaffirm that it was a Commerce Clause penalty, in which case it is unconstitutional. Here is our conclusion:

Now, as the price for delaying the implementation of the court-created tax penalty, Republicans should demand truth in labeling. The Democrats in Congress must now admit they have imposed a tax on young and healthy Americans to get them to take the bad deal that is Obamacare. And any suspension of this tax must be scored by the Congressional Budget Office so the public knows the size of the tax increase that will be imposed on the American people when the delay ends and the tax kicks in. No longer will congressional supporters of the ACA be able to evade political responsibility.
On the other hand, if the Democrats insist that the penalty is not a tax, then they will be admitting that it is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision. If Congress contradicts what the administration told the Supreme Court, a new challenge can be brought under the precedent of NFIB v. Sebelius. The president, and those who supported this law, should now be forced to bear the political consequences of their legislative and litigation legerdemain. If Obamacare can only legally live by the tax, then its supporters in Congress must politically die by the tax.

There are important constitutional reasons for labeling this law accurately.  Five members of the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius held that a penalty that forces people to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The Chief Justice found that a tax on those who do not have health insurance, in contrast, would be constitutional if it is not coercive. Thus, the only way Obamacare's constitutionality could be saved was as a tax. If it is a penalty, it would be unconstitutional.

The significance of the tax/penalty distinction will take on an even greater importance in the future when it becomes evident that the "tax" on not having insurance is too low to incentivize many to buy insurance. Inevitably, there will be efforts to increase the cost of being uninsured. There are suggestions that the Administration made the penalty low in 2010 in order to make the bill an easier sale (like the "you can keep your insurance" pitch), with the understanding that it could be raised later.  That option is no longer available because, in his opinion upholding the bulk of the ACA, Chief Justice Roberts said that the tax cannot be so high as to coerce or "mandate" anyone to buy health insurance.

For those who may argue that the Court already found that the law is a tax, and there is no reason for Congress to act on it, that is not the case.  Chief Justice Roberts only treated Obamacare as a tax for purposes of his saving construction. The reason why he needed to rewrite the law was because the actual law Congress passed was an unconstitutional penalty.

For now, any law suspending the operation of the "tax" should identify its constitutional basis.  If it is truly a penalty, then it is unconstitutional under NFIB. But if it is a tax on the uninsured, it should be scored like any other tax and those who vote for it should finally assume political responsibility for raising taxes on the uninsured.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/05/aca-supporters-must-admit-taxing-uninsured/

Why Football Has Become So Militarized


Why Football Has Become So Militarized
Thomas DiLorenzo

Have you ever wondered why it is that it is impossible to watch an NFL football game, and many college football games, without witnessing tens of thousands of people jumping up out of their seats at lightning speed to sing an anthem to statism; looking at a gigantic American flag that covers the entire football field; seeing fighter jets flying over the stadium; scores of old, dumpy-looking guys in camouflage walking around playing army and carrying flags; etc., etc.  The reason for all of this fascist-style militarism, as these BBC video documentaries explain, is that the U.S. government aspires to imitate the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in terms of how they used sports to glorify the state and statism.  (You might also be interested in a book entitled Football and Fascism by Simon Martin).

Re: Robert Spencer - the Prophet's worst nightmare

Is Robert Spencer concerned for his own safety?  Please send us a link to his blog. Than you.
 
In a message dated 11/9/2013 8:45:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, baconlard@gmail.com writes:








 

Robert Spencer – the Prophet's worst nightmare

 

Robert Spencer started his blog JihadWatch ten years ago.

Robert Spencer – the Prophet's worst nightmare

Posted by: Nicolai Sennels 4 November, 2013

There is no evidence that Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, ever lived but Islam is very much alive and as warlike as ever. So is Robert Spencer, who started his much-read blog JihadWatch exactly ten years ago. 44,415 posts later he shares his thoughts with Dispatch International. 

For ten years Robert Spencer has tirelessly been putting up news and commentary about jihad activity, domestic and international, violent and stealthy. The point, as Spencer remarks, has not been to "demonize" Islam or Muslims, but "to prove that there is a problem within Islam that needs to be addressed by people of good will, Muslim and non-Muslim".

How many read your blog?

– Generally it is around 30,000 people daily, around 900,000 monthly.

How long will you keep on blogging?

– Probably for as long as I'm breathing, or until they pass the laws criminalizing criticism of Islam that they've been working on for years, and put me in prison. In addition to blogging,

I've written 13 books about Islam, jihad, Muhammed, and related issues.
What exactly is jihad?

– Jihad (Arabic for "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology.

Many passages of the Koran and sayings of Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

 

In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Koran – most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword":

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (9:5).

Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim. Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

 

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."
Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.
In your recent bookDid Muhammad exist, you express doubt that he ever did. Why?

– There is no historical basis for Muhammed the prophet of Islam as depicted in the Hadith [the deeds and sayings of the prophet, ed.]. The Hadith themselves date from around 200 years after he is supposed to have lived, and the first biography of Muhammed wasn't written until 125 years after his death. For the first 60 years of Islamic history, there is no mention in any extant records of the many people that the Arabs conquered – and there are many such records – that the conquerors came with a new prophet, a new holy book, or a new religion. There may have been an Arab warlord named Muhammed to whom these legends were attached, but that is virtually all we know about Muhammed. He is legend, not history.

 

Do you think that jihad is capable of destroying Western culture and if so, how could it happen?

– Certainly. Right now the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to pushing businesses and educational institutions into accommodating Islamic law. Numerous precedents have been set in this way.

What could stop this trend?

– Surveys show that Islam critical parties will become the biggest or among the biggest parties in several European countries – including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Austria and France.

Is there a similar growth in awareness concerning Islam in the US?

– Not at all. The Republicans are as clueless and compromised as the Democrats. Islamorealistic politicians are few and not powerful.

 

 



__._,_.__






__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis (embarrassingly, BNI’s alma mater) bows to Muslim pressure over Osama bin Laden/Navy SEALS Halloween costumes





BareNakedIslam posted: " Halloween costumes at colleges are the latest battleground for the left. Joining in the fun is the Muslim Students Association; a fun-loving Muslim Brotherhood front group whose presidents have a tendency to join Al Qaeda.  Frontpage Magazine by Daniel G"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis (embarrassingly, BNI's alma mater) bows to Muslim pressure over Osama bin Laden/Navy SEALS Halloween costumes

by BareNakedIslam

Halloween costumes at colleges are the latest battleground for the left. Joining in the fun is the Muslim Students Association; a fun-loving Muslim Brotherhood front group whose presidents have a tendency to join Al Qaeda.  Frontpage Magazine by Daniel Greenfield  - Since Osama bin Laden was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it was only natural for the Washington University MSA […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | November 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-Zi2

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/08/washington-university-st-louis-embarrassingly-bnis-alma-mater-bows-to-muslim-pressure-over-osama-bin-ladennavy-seals-halloween-costumes/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Another Obamacare surprise: Major hospitals all across the country not included under new insurance plans





Harold posted: "Jonathan Benson11/8/2013Source ..... As if the millions of Americans set to lose their existing health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare was not bad enough, a recent survey by Watchdog.org has found that many top hospitals across the nation will"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

Another Obamacare surprise: Major hospitals all across the country not included under new insurance plans

by Harold

Jonathan Benson 11/8/2013 Source ..... As if the millions of Americans set to lose their existing health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare was not bad enough, a recent survey by Watchdog.org has found that many top hospitals across the nation will no longer be accessible to the average person with a new "eligible" […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from ACGR's "News with Attitude".
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/02-1265/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama 'Not Prepared' to Stop Iran Nuclear Program








Tags: Exclusive Interviews | Nuclear Iran | iran | nuclear | obama | negotiations

Richard Perle: Obama 'Not Prepared' to Stop Iran Nuclear Program

Friday, 08 Nov 2013 05:11 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

The Obama administration's push for a nuclear disarmament deal with Iran is mostly smoke and mirrors, Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Newsmax.

"President [Barack] Obama is not prepared to take any action to stop the Iranian nuclear program," Perle told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"So one way to avoid taking action is to reach an agreement and claim it solves the problem — whether it solves it or not."

Story continues below video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdcRrW0M4Xw


"If you define the problem correctly, it is ending the Iranian nuclear weapons program and an agreement that fails to do that may satisfy the president's requirement for an excuse to do nothing, but it isn't going to solve the problem."

It is doubtful that Iran can be trusted in any kind of deal with the United States despite the ongoing, intensive negotiations between the two countries in Geneva, Perle believes.

"There are many issues between Iran and the civilized world and Iran and the United States of which their nuclear weapons ambitions are only one," he said.

"There's the Iranian involvement in terrorism. They are the No. 1 sponsor of terrorism around the world. Just look at Hezbollah, for example. So we have a lot of issues with Iran."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday that he "utterly rejects" the impending agreement, calling it a "bad deal." And he reiterated that Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself.

Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and says international pressure should be stepped up, not eased, in order to force Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, unilaterally if necessary, if he concludes that diplomatic pressure on Iran has failed.

"I understand the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva as well they should because they got everything and paid nothing," Netanyahu told reporters, according to The Associated Press.

"They wanted relief of sanctions after years of grueling sanctions — they got that. They paid nothing because they are not reducing in any way their nuclear enrichment capability. So Iran got the deal of the century and the international community got a bad deal," Netanyahu said.

"This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and defend the security of its people," he said.

Perle said Netanyahu is right to question the deal.

"I expect that the Israeli prime minister is looking at one question and that is, does this stop the Iranian program or not? And I'm afraid the answer is, it doesn't. So he's looking at the right question. He's raising the right issue," said Perle, a former assistant Secretary of Defense. 

"Interim agreements in situations like this are always hazardous. The hope is always that it will last for a little while bridging a permanent agreement that does meet one's needs, and the need here is to stop the Iranian program. But it rarely works out that way. So I would have to agree that this is a very doubtful deal from the point of view of all of us who are endangered by an Iranian nuclear weapon, and it's not just Israelis, it's the whole world, really."

Secretary of State John Kerry was in Geneva along with European officials to meet with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as hopes of reaching an initial agreementreached a "critical stage."

Perle s
aid if Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state, "it will do even more of the dangerous and provocative destabilizing things it's been doing in the region and around the world."

Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-negotiations-obama-weapons/2013/11/08/id/535711?ns_mail_uid=4894262&ns_mail_job=1545467_11082013&promo_code=158E4-1#ixzz2k73vVKeC 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Robert Spencer - the Prophet's worst nightmare









 

Robert Spencer – the Prophet's worst nightmare

 

Robert Spencer started his blog JihadWatch ten years ago.

Robert Spencer – the Prophet's worst nightmare

Posted by: Nicolai Sennels 4 November, 2013

There is no evidence that Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, ever lived but Islam is very much alive and as warlike as ever. So is Robert Spencer, who started his much-read blog JihadWatch exactly ten years ago. 44,415 posts later he shares his thoughts with Dispatch International. 

For ten years Robert Spencer has tirelessly been putting up news and commentary about jihad activity, domestic and international, violent and stealthy. The point, as Spencer remarks, has not been to "demonize" Islam or Muslims, but "to prove that there is a problem within Islam that needs to be addressed by people of good will, Muslim and non-Muslim".

How many read your blog?

– Generally it is around 30,000 people daily, around 900,000 monthly.

How long will you keep on blogging?

– Probably for as long as I'm breathing, or until they pass the laws criminalizing criticism of Islam that they've been working on for years, and put me in prison. In addition to blogging,

I've written 13 books about Islam, jihad, Muhammed, and related issues.
What exactly is jihad?

– Jihad (Arabic for "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology.

Many passages of the Koran and sayings of Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

 

In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Koran – most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword":

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (9:5).

Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim. Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

 

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."
Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.
In your recent bookDid Muhammad exist, you express doubt that he ever did. Why?

– There is no historical basis for Muhammed the prophet of Islam as depicted in the Hadith [the deeds and sayings of the prophet, ed.]. The Hadith themselves date from around 200 years after he is supposed to have lived, and the first biography of Muhammed wasn't written until 125 years after his death. For the first 60 years of Islamic history, there is no mention in any extant records of the many people that the Arabs conquered – and there are many such records – that the conquerors came with a new prophet, a new holy book, or a new religion. There may have been an Arab warlord named Muhammed to whom these legends were attached, but that is virtually all we know about Muhammed. He is legend, not history.

 

Do you think that jihad is capable of destroying Western culture and if so, how could it happen?

– Certainly. Right now the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to pushing businesses and educational institutions into accommodating Islamic law. Numerous precedents have been set in this way.

What could stop this trend?

– Surveys show that Islam critical parties will become the biggest or among the biggest parties in several European countries – including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Austria and France.

Is there a similar growth in awareness concerning Islam in the US?

– Not at all. The Republicans are as clueless and compromised as the Democrats. Islamorealistic politicians are few and not powerful.

 

 



__._,_.__






__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Nebraska: Muslim attacks relative with crowbar over lesbian engagement (ie, attempted honor killing)



creeping posted: "via Police: Man attacks relative in suspected anti-gay hate crime : Journal Star Breaking News. A 20-year-old man allegedly attacked a relative with a crowbar Thursday evening because she's marrying a woman, Lincoln police said. Ahmed Mohammed Tuma,"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

Nebraska: Muslim attacks relative with crowbar over lesbian engagement (ie, attempted honor killing)

by creeping

via Police: Man attacks relative in suspected anti-gay hate crime : Journal Star Breaking News. A 20-year-old man allegedly attacked a relative with a crowbar Thursday evening because she's marrying a woman, Lincoln police said. Ahmed Mohammed Tuma, 5312 Tipperary Trail, and a friend went to the woman's home near 27th and O streets at […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Creeping Sharia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/nebraska-muslim-attacks-relative-with-crowbar-over-lesbian-engagement-ie-attempted-honor-killing/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

How America Was Lost


November 7, 2013
How America Was Lost
Paul Craig Roberts

"No legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its power, position, and prestige." Dean Acheson , 1962, speaking to the American Society of International Law.

Dean Acheson declared 51 years ago that power, position, and prestige are the ingredients of national security and that national security trumps law. In the United States democracy takes a back seat to "national security," a prerogative of the executive branch of government.

National security is where the executive branch hides its crimes against law, both domestic and international, its crimes against the Constitution, its crimes against innocent citizens both at home and abroad, and its secret agendas that it knows that the American public would never support.

"National security" is the cloak that the executive branch uses to make certain that the US government is unaccountable.

Without accountable government there is no civil liberty and no democracy except for the sham voting that existed in the Soviet Union and now exists in the US.

There have been periods in US history, such as President Lincoln's war to prevent secession, World War I, and World War II, when accountable government was impaired. These were short episodes of the Constitution's violation, and the Constitution was reinstated in the aftermath of the wars. However, since the Clinton regime, the accountability of government has been declining for more than two decades, longer than the three wars combined.

In law there is the concept of adverse possession, popularly known as "squatters' rights." A non-owner who succeeds in occupying a piece of property or some one else's right for a certain time without being evicted enjoys the ownership title conveyed to him. The reasoning is that by not defending his rights, the owner showed his disinterest and in effect gave his rights away.

Americans have not defended their rights conveyed by the US Constitution for the duration of the terms of three presidents. The Clinton regime was not held accountable for its illegal attack on Serbia. The Bush regime was not held accountable for its illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama regime was not held accountable for its renewed attack on Afghanistan and its illegal attacks on Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen, and by its proxies on Syria.

We also have other strictly illegal and unconstitutional acts of government for which the government has not been held accountable. The Bush regimes' acts of torture, indefinite detention, and warrantless spying, and the Obama regime's acts of indefinite detention, warrantless spying, and murder of US citizens without due process. As the Obama regime lies through its teeth, we have no way of knowing whether torture is still practiced.

If these numerous criminal acts of the US government spread over the terms of three presidents pass into history as unchallenged events, the US government will have acquired squatters' rights in lawlessness. The US Constitution will be, as President George W. Bush is reported to have declared, "a scrap of paper."

Lawlessness is the hallmark of tyranny enforced by the police state. In a police state law is not a protector of rights but a weapon in the hands of government. [see Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions] The accused has no recourse to the accusation, which does not require evidence presented to a court. The accused is guilty by accusation alone and can be shot in the back of the head, as under Stalin, or blown up by a drone missile, as under Obama.

As a person aware of the long struggle against the tyrannical state, I have been amazed and disheartened by the acceptance not only by the insouciant American public, but also by law schools, bar associations, media, Congress and the Supreme Court of the executive branch's claim to be above both law and the US Constitution.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book about how the law was lost, liberals and conservatives chasing after their favorite devils, such as child abusers and drug pushers, and prosecutors, judges, and police devoted to conviction and not to justice, have gradually eroded over time the concept of law as a protection of the innocent, With the atmosphere of threat created by 9/11, the final destruction of the protective features of law was quickly achieved in the name of making us safe from terrorists.

The fact that we are no longer safe from our own government did not register.

This is how liberty was lost, and America with it.

Can liberty be regained? Probably not, but there is a chance if Americans have the necessary strength of character. The chance comes from the now known fact that the neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime took America and its puppet states to war in Afghanistan and Iraq entirely on the basis of lies. As all evidence proves, these wars were not the results of mistaken intelligence. They were the products of intentional lies.

The weapons inspectors told the Bush regime that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite this known fact, the Bush regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN with fabricated evidence to convince the world that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" and was a threat to the world. Even if such weapons had existed in Iraq, many countries have them, including the US and Israel, and the presence of weapons does not under the Nuremberg Laws justify unprovoked aggression against the possessor. Under the Nuremberg Laws, unprovoked military aggression is a war crime, not the possession of weapons that many countries have. The war crime was committed by the US and its "coalition of the willing," not by Saddam Hussein.

As for the invasion of Afghanistan, we know from the last video of Osama bin Laden in October 2001, attested by experts to be the last appearance of a man dying of renal failure and other diseases, that he declared that he had no responsibility for 9/11 and that Americans should look to their own government. We know as a reported fact that the Afghan Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to Washington if the Bush regime would provide the evidence that indicated bin Laden was responsible. The Bush regime refused to hand over the (non-existent) evidence and, with support of the corrupt and cowardly Congress and the presstitute media, attacked Afghanistan without any legal justification. Remember, the FBI has stated publicly that it has no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that that is why the crimes for which the FBI wanted bin Laden did not include responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

The war propaganda campaign was well prepared. Yellow ribbon decals were handed out for cars proclaiming "support the troops." In other words, anyone who raises the obvious questions is not supporting the troops. Still today insouciant Americans sport these decals on their cars unaware that what they are supporting are the murder of foreign women, children and village elders, the death and physical and mental maiming of American soldiers, and the worldwide destruction of the reputation of the United States, with America's main rival, China, now calling for a "de-Americanized world."

A country with a population as insouciant as Americans is a country in which the government can do as it pleases.

Now that we have complete proof that the criminal Bush regime took our country to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq solely on the basis of intentional lies, how can the legal institutions, the courts, the American people possibly tolerate the Obama regime's ignoring of the obvious crimes? How can America simply accept Obama's statement that we mustn't look back, only move ahead? If the US government, which has committed the worst crimes of our generation, cannot be held accountable and punished, how can federal, state, and local courts fill up American prisons with people who smoked pot and with people who did not sufficiently grovel before the police state.

Doubtless, the Obama regime, should it obey the law and prosecute the Bush regime's crimes, would have to worry about being prosecuted for its own crimes, which are just as terrible. Nevertheless, I believe that the Obama regime could survive if it put all the blame on the Bush regime, prosecuted the Bush criminals, and desisted from the illegal actions that it currently supports. This would save the Constitution and US civil liberty, but it would require the White House to take the risk that by enforcing US law, US law might be enforced against its own illegal and unconstitutional acts by a succeeding regime.

The Bush/Cheney/John Yoo neoconservative regime having got rid of US law, no doubt the Obama regime thinks it is best to leave the situation as it is, rid of law.

Without accountability, America is finished. Not only will Americans live in a police state with no civil liberties, but the rest of the world is already looking at America with a jaundiced eye. The US is being reconstituted as an authoritarian state. All it takes is one failure of accountability for the police state to become entrenched, and we have had numerous failures of accountability. Does anyone really believe that some future government is going to make restitution to persecuted truth-tellers, such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowdon, as was done for Japanese Americans?

Now that we know for a certain fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on propaganda and lies, Congress and the world media should demand to know what was the real secret agenda. What are the real reasons for which Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?

No truthful explanation for these wars exists.

Paul O'Neill, the Bush regime's first Treasury Secretary, is on public record stating that at the very first cabinet meeting, long prior to 9/11, the agenda was a US attack on Iraq.

In other words, the Bush regime's attack on Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

What was the Bush regime's secret agenda, kept secret by the Obama regime, that required an illegal, war criminal, attack on a sovereign country, an action for which officials of Hitler's government were executed? What is the real purpose of Washington's wars?

It is totally and completely obvious that the wars have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. If anything, the wars stir up and create terrorists. The wars create hatred of America that never previously existed. Despite this, America is free of terrorists attacks except for the ones orchestrated by the FBI. What the fabricated "terror threat" has done is to create a thorough-going domestic police state that is unaccountable.

Americans need to understand that they have lost their country. The rest of the world needs to recognize that Washington is not merely the most complete police state since Stalinism, but also a threat to the entire world. The hubris and arrogance of Washington, combined with Washington's huge supply of weapons of mass destruction, make Washington the greatest threat that has ever existed to all life on the planet. Washington is the enemy of all humanity.


http://paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/07/america-lost-paul-craig-roberts/