If You Love America - You May Be A Terrorist

by

        M. Richard Maxson

 

      At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The official definition of terrorism is “The use, or threat, of force with the intention of achieving a political goal.” That makes it pretty clear what sort of people are covered, and for decades it worked well. The government applied the label “terrorist” to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. Then the Obama regime removed all references to Islam from terror training materials, and government sites. Instead the term “terrorist” was applied to large groups of American citizens who did not fall in line with the New World Order that was unfolding.

      Today, if you a conservative, a libertarian, an originalist, a gun owner, or religious opposed to globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, abortion, the United Nations or the New World Order? YOU are classified by this government as a potential terrorist. Yes, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents. Here is just a partial list of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.

• Those that talk about “individual liberties.

• Those that advocate for states’ rights.

• "The Patriot Movement.

• Returning veterans.

• Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.”

• Those that display the Gadsden Flag.” (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

• Those that are against illegal immigration.

• Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner.”

• Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

• Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21.

• General right-wing extremist.

• Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

• Those that are “anti-global.

• Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority.

• Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack

• Those concerned about “illegal immigration.

• Those that “believe in the right to bear arms.

• Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes.

• Anti-abortion activists.

• Those that want “to make the world a better place.”

• Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists."

• Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable.

       The list goes on and on but I bet you have already found yourself to be…. a potential terrorist and if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that were being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke. The FBI has asked Americans to examine their own family members for signs of “homegrown violent extremism,” and report them. Yes, turn in your family. (See:NAZIs) The call for snitches comes as the FBI turns its surveillance powers on regular Americans.

      Now the first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized. President Joe Biden has spoke of white supremacism,” which he called “the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today” during his first speech to Congress in April. Quite a load of…. Against this supposed “threat,” the Justice Department has asked for new powers of prosecution, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has claimed that right-wingers and conservatives, “inspired by foreign terrorist groups” and “emboldened by the breach of the US Capitol Building,” are “plotting attacks and “threatening violence against critical infrastructure.” Another load.

      Under Communism people who didn’t embrace their agenda were purged, under fascism the nonconformists were sent to re-education/work camps, or killed. Progressives can’t simply murder or imprison people who flee their thought plantation,  so they try to ruin them in the meantime. The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with. In some of the government documents, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups

       “Fascists,” “Brown-shirts,” “jackbooted storm-troopers”— such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst? We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history. You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs. Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

 

Snowden, Assange, and the Western Elite

by 

       Phillip Todd

      In a surprising decision last September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that “the warrantless telephone dragnet that secretly collected millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is unconstitutional.” Edward Snowden is a patriot. He is not a traitor. He is a legitimate whistleblower.

      Snowden was somewhat shocked by the outcome. He posted the following on Twitter: “I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them. . . . The Supreme Court once said, “It is difficult for the People to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” That’s why I blew the whistle in the first place: the public has a right to know decisions that redefine the territory of their rights.  

      This comes seven years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records. Snowden exposed the details of a massive NSA program that used the fear of terrorism to trample on the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The U.S. Government is following the same twisted plan in prosecuting American citizens who entered the Capitol on January 6.

      The courts got this one right. The flame of liberty and the fire of freedom have not yet been extinguished in America. It is the ultimate irony that Snowden enjoys more freedom and protection of his civil rights in Russia than in America.

      Then there is Julian Assange. Not an American citizen yet the U.S. government wants to prosecute him. His crime was publishing, not even on U.S. soil, the government’s cover-up of illegal surveillance and probable war crimes. Even after the court’s decision on Edward Snowden apparently the facade must continue.

      Key accusations in the case against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the US, are reportedly based on testimony from a convicted fraudster who admitted to media he was lying.

      Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, an Icelandic citizen and former WikiLeaks volunteer who became an informant, has admitted to Icelandic newspaper Stundin that he fabricated important parts of the accusations in the indictment against Assange for $5,000 he received from the FBI. In the article Stundin details several parts of his testimony that he now denies, claiming that Assange never instructed him to carry out any hacking

      Thordarson also provided the publication with chat logs from his time volunteering for WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011, showing his frequent requests for hackers to either attack or get information but none of the logs show that Thordarson was asked to do that by anyone inside WikiLeaks. What they do show, according to the newspaper, are constant attempts by the organization’s volunteer to inflate his position, describing himself as chief of staff or head of communications In 2012, WikiLeaks filed criminal charges against Thordarson over embezzlement and financial fraud. He was later sentenced for both in Iceland.

      Stundin also cites Ogmundur Jonasson, then-Icelandic interior minister, who says US authorities were going out of their way to get Assange. “They were trying to use things here [in Iceland] and use people in our country to spin a web, a cobweb that would catch Julian Assange.”

      The newspaper claims that Thordarson’s testimony is key for the prosecution’s line portraying Assange as a criminal, rather than a journalist publishing material protected by the First Amendment, like the New York Times or other media that shared the same documents as WikiLeaks.

      Reacting to the bombshell article by Stundin, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted: “This is the end of the case against Julian Assange.” Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald agreed, saying: “It should be.”

     The truth, whether about  Russia and President Trump or for their plans for World War (*links below) the western elite had to stop Assange and for all intents and purposes - they have.

      Regardless of the truth, the court in London will extradite Assange as it has sided with the US when it came to claims based on Thordarson’s now-denied testimony. Assange has spent more than three years behind bars at Belmarsh Prison in the UK being tortured. The US government has charged the Australian journalist under the Espionage Act, accusing him of leaking classified information in 2010. At the time, WikiLeaks published documents detailing abuses, including possible war crimes, carried out by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington is currently seeking his extradition, and Assange could be jailed for up to 175 years if found guilty. At the beginning of June, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer called on the UK government to release the journalist, condemning his incarceration as “one of the biggest judicial scandals in history.”

1.  ASSANGE: Trump had no connection to Russia -.https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1493086451692617735
   
2. War...Constant War...It's What they Want

 

**Phillip Todd is the foreign correspondant for The American Constitutionalist

Why Does NATO Still Exist?

by

      Phillip Todd

     For over a century now American politicians have made a habit of flexing this country’s muscles abroad and have consistently made matters worse rather than better. Our entry into World War I by the first Progressive president, for example, led to Germany’s humiliation at Versailles, which paved the way for the rise of Hitler and the deaths of 70 million people in World War II.

      Now, the western elite, after 25 years of eastward expansion of NATO toward Russia’s border, is on the verge of igniting another world war and for what?

      NATO, headed by the U.S. was founded to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, which – as a Marxist country – was ideologically committed to the destruction of capitalism around the globe.

      But Russia is not the Soviet Union. It has no desire to conquer Germany or France – let alone the United States – and nothing in its 1,000-year history suggests that it would develop such a desire. So why does NATO still exist? Why didn’t it disband with the fall of the Soviet Union? Why does it keep moving east? It has nothing to do with Europe’s security.

      They arrogantly ignore Russia’s concerns and blithely advance NATO weapon systems eastward. How does that serve our interests or the interests of peace? Why are we trying to increase the chance of world conflict rather than decrease it? And what’s the logic of driving Russia into an alliance with China, our chief enemy?

      There was a time, right after the fall of the Soviet Communist state, when Russia was the Wests friend. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation that was signed in Paris, France on 27 May 1997 states, “NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries.” It also states, “The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe...” Undivided? There you have their biggest lie unless you consider the promise not to expand NATO.

       Why does NATO still exist? It does so because after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a vacuum which was originally filled with the western elite. It didn’t take Russians long to see they were going to be exploited in every way. The expulsion of these opportunists is what set off the western elite. The Founding Act was a ruse to move their military, the elite’s military – NATO, closer and closer towards the Russian border until Russia said, enough!

      The western cabal can put lipstick on this pig as much

as they want but the facts are clear. NATO is the military arm of the western elite and peace is not their goal. Russia, in the past twenty- five years since the signing of the “treaty,” has only taken back territory where the majority of inhabitants are Russian and have experienced massive discrimination, violence, and/or death under the current regimes.

      In his famous farewell address, George Washington advised us to have “as little political connection as possible” with foreign nations. We would do well to heed his words. Beginning with the Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, U.S. interference abroad has yielded numerous disasters in the past, and we are living through one right now. It’s time to for us to practice some humility and stop being a war-mongering, war for profit entity before it’s too late.

The Constitutionalist as the Founders Intended

 by

      M. Richard Maxson

 

       The term constitutionalist is used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the US Constitution. The person may be known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. This person typically favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution, and one that is small not only in size but also in scope and in power. There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist.

      Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers’ original intent, which is said to be more important than the precise words used. This intent is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalist Papers are but one of the favored sources of the originalist.

      Originalists need to emphasize that the “intent of the makers” standard is not unique to constitutional interpretation. It is, and long has been, the standard for interpreting documents generally. Pre-Founding-era and Founding-era legal sources show the “intent of the makers” guiding construction of documents of all kinds, with the notable exception of real estate conveyances. Of course, the identity of the “makers” varied with the nature of the instrument. For a statute, the “makers” were the legislators (not the legislative drafters); for a will, the testator; for a contract, the contracting parties; for a constitution, the ratifiers. Today we usually refer to the “the intent of the parties” rather than the intent of the makers, but originalism remains the prevailing rule of documentary construction throughout the law.

      Extrapolations of the Constitution in modern times

based in semantics has happened too often. Judicial activists, who believe in a false idea of a “living” constitution and forcefully apply their own interpretations. This is nothing new. It happened almost immediately after the signing. As James Madison stated at the time, “…. the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders. Constitutionalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought, NOT what the current society wants. The Constitution allows for laws to be passed and allows for changes to the document excluding tyranny of the majority to satisfy the current society. It is the greatest document of mankind to date and it needs to be heeded, not ridiculed by fools.

      It has long been held that the Constitution, as well as laws and other legally binding documents, should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. Ninety-Two percent of people expressed support for the idea that a good Supreme Court judge should “uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago.” The Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom is not free, and the Constitution is just some words on paper if we do not do anything to those who violate it.