Here’s a quick test. Pictured below are two people who were featured in the news last week, can you name them and why they made the news?
If you are a victim of the mainstream media propaganda machine, your answer is predictable: The woman on the left is, of course, Sandra Fluke, so-called champion of women’s health and the target of crude remarks made by radio shock jock Rush Limbaugh. You likely have no idea who the man on the right is, but you should.
Asked whether or not the Administration of Barack Obama’s assertion that the Federal government can murder American citizens suspected of terrorism for the greater good of the Nation extends to targets on U.S. soil, the man on the right replied, “I’d have to go back, I, uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”
The man pictured on the right, by the way, is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller.
While mainstream media spent last week writing headlines like The Washington Post’s “Limbaugh, Fluke and the GOP’s ‘war on women’” — a controversy oddly, and conveniently, coinciding with International Women’s Day — something much more frightening than Fluke’s having to forgo luxuries while in college to pay for birth control was afoot.
A week ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told an audience at Northwestern University Law School that the President of the United States “in full accordance with the Constitution” can kill American citizens that pose a threat to the Federal government.
Holder added something else that may actually account for Mueller’s confusion: The President’s authority to murder U.S. citizens without due process, trial or conviction is “not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan” because “we are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.”
Not to worry, though. Since the Obama Administration and the Federal bureaucracy have opted to do away with three Amendments included in the Bill of Rights, they have offered their own due process of sorts. Three conditions must be met prior to the murder, according to Holder: First, the target must pose an “imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.” Second, capturing the target is deemed “not feasible” by the Administration. Third, the Federal government must engage the American citizen they intend to kill in a manner consistent with the rules of war: target must be deemed hostile; no excessive collateral damage; the manner chosen for the murder must not inflict unnecessary suffering.
To condense the previous paragraph, it could be said that Holder’s list of requirements for murdering American citizens deemed hostile is the martial law equivalent of what once were the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. The Supreme Court offers no concrete definition of the term “martial law,” but most historical and legal experts contend its implementation is marked by things such as: military authority over civil and criminal laws, suspension of Habeas Corpus and the elimination of civil liberties such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Under this martial law however, public knowledge of an individual’s prosecution is eliminated, as is fate determined by his peers and the guarantee of protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Liberty-defender Judge Andrew Napolitano put Holder’s explanation of why it is acceptable to kill Americans without trial into perspective in a recent FOX News interview, “His [Holder’s] argument is that there is a substituted form of due process. That if the President and his advisors carefully consider the danger of a human being and conclude that that human being needs to be stopped before that person causes anymore danger, then the President can kill him. That’s their argument. There is no case law that stands for that, there is no statue that authorizes it and it directly defies the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.”
Napolitano also notes that the last time the Federal government said it could kill American citizens was during the Civil War, and “even Lincoln said it could only be done during combat.”
“This Federal government, this Administration says it can kill Americans when they’re riding with their children in the car in a desert,” said the Judge.
Most Americans do not believe that any of the above-mentioned information even applies to them and adhere to an “I don’t do anything against the law so why should I worry” mantra. That is a tough argument to back up considering recent developments such as the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, initiatives by the FBI and the Department of Justice to flag mundane activities that many Americans take part in each day as possible indicators of terrorist activity, legislation focused on logging Americans’ every keystroke and Internet search and about 4,500 Federal laws (some of which you could be breaking at this very moment) on the books. How can anyone determine with absolute certainty that the Federal government will not target and kill them — if even by mistake?
Due process is eliminated and the target will be dead once deemed a threat; there is no chance to defend innocence after the fact. Consider the patsies that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are continually baiting into terror plots by trolling extremist websites and providing dummy weapons to bolster the alarmist agenda and assault on liberty: What if the Feds could get the “We Got Another Terrorist” headlines without any effort? What if it were as easy as locating any American who disagrees with the Federal agenda and murdering the person before releasing information to the tune of “President Obama heroically authorizes the killing of extremist John Doe averting thousands of deaths in terror plot”?
The authorities have no shortage of possible targets. With the help of alarmist neocons continuing to push the Muslim-terrorist stereotype and the liberal left in the mainstream media and government painting American patriots as a growing legion of domestic terrorists, the perpetual-fear society is alive and well from sea to shining sea.
There is one bright side to all of this for those who are so very concerned about Fluke’s contraceptives, Limbaugh’s poor choice of words, the right-left paradigm and any number of nonsense social issues: When the Federal elitists finish the job, they will stop using nonsense to divert Americans’ attention. How you feel about those issues will be decided for you.