Government is rule by brute force. For the past few decades, multiple presidents have been grabbing power and control at every chance. While Trump may wield this power for good, the concern is that giving anyone that much power will lead to tyranny. Whether Trump or Obama is president, Americans need to act now to rein in power.
By John W. Whitehead
All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have been inherited by Donald Trump.
Whatever kind of president Trump chooses to be, he now has the power to completely alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.
He has this power because every successive occupant of the Oval Office has been allowed to expand the reach and power of the presidency through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives, and legislative signing statements that can be activated by any sitting president.
Those of us who saw this eventuality coming have been warning for years about the growing danger of the executive branch with its presidential toolbox of terror that could be used—and abused—by future presidents.
The groundwork, we warned, was being laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the president—or whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office at the time—thinks. And if he or she thinks you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides. In effect, you will disappear.
Our warnings went largely unheeded.
First, we sounded the alarm over George W. Bush’s attempts to gut the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus, carry out warrantless surveillance on Americans, and generally undermine the Fourth Amendment, but the Republicans didn’t want to listen because Bush was a Republican.
Then we sounded the alarm over Barack Obama’s prosecution of whistleblowers, targeted drone killings, assassinations of American citizens, mass surveillance, and militarization of the police, but the Democrats didn’t want to listen because Obama was a Democrat, and he talked a really good game.
It well may be that by the time Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—stop playing partisan games and start putting some safeguards in place, it will be too late.
Already, Trump has indicated that he will pick up where his predecessors left off: He will continue to wage war, he will continue to federalize the police, and he will operate as if the Constitution does not apply to him.
Still, as tempting as it may be, don’t blame Trump for what is to come.
If this nation eventually locks down, if Americans are rounded up and detained based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or their political views, if law and order takes precedence over constitutional principles . . .
If martial law is eventually declared, if we find that there really is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from the surveillance state’s prying eyes and ears, and if our constitutional republic finally plunges headlong over the cliff and leaves us in the iron grip of totalitarianism . . .
Please, resist the urge to lay all the blame at Trump’s feet. After all, Trump didn’t create the police state. He merely inherited it. Frankly, there’s more than enough blame to go around. So blame Obama. Blame Bush. Blame Bill Clinton. Blame the Republicans and Democrats who justified every power grab, every expansion of presidential powers, and every attack on the Constitution as long as it was a member of their own party leading the charge.
Blame Congress for being a weak, inept body that spends more time running for office and pandering to the interests of the monied elite than representing the citizenry.
Blame the courts for caring more about order than justice and for failing to hold government officials accountable to the rule of law.
Blame corporate America for taking control of the government and calling the shots behind the scenes.
Most of all, blame the American people for not having objected louder, sooner, and more vehemently when Obama, Bush, and their predecessors laid the groundwork for this state of tyranny.
But wait, you say. Americans are mobilizing. They are engaged. They are actively expressing their discontent with the government. They are demanding change. They are marching in the streets, picketing, protesting, and engaging in acts of civil disobedience. This is a good development, right? Isn’t this what we’ve been calling on Americans to do for so long: stand up and push back and say “enough is enough”?
Perhaps you’re right.
Perhaps Americans have finally had enough. At least, some Americans have finally had enough.
That is to say, some Americans have finally had enough of certain government practices that are illegal, immoral, and inhumane.
Although, to be quite fair, it might be more accurate to state that some Americans have finally had enough of certain government practices that are illegal, immoral, and inhumane provided that the ruling political party responsible for those actions is not their own.
Yes, that sounds about right. Except that it’s all wrong.
We still haven’t learned a thing.
Imagine: After more than eight years in which Americans remained largely silent while the United States military (directed by the Obama administration) bombed parts of the Middle East to smithereens—dropping nearly three bombs an hour, and left a trail of innocent civilian deaths in its wake—suddenly, Americans are outraged by programs introduced by the Trump administration that could discriminate against Muslim refugees. Never mind that we’ve been killing those same refugees for close to a decade.
Certainly, there was little outcry when the U.S. military under Obama carried out an air strike against a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. Doctors, patients—including children—and staff members were killed or wounded. There were also no protests when the Obama administration targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, for assassination by drone strike. The man was killed without ever having been charged with a crime. Two weeks later, Obama—the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize—authorized another drone strike that killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, also an American citizen.
Most recently, picking up where President Obama left off, Trump personally authorized a commando raid on a compound in Yemen suspected of harboring al Qaeda officials. Among those killed were “at least eight women and seven children, ages three to 13,” including Nora, the eight-year-old sister of the teenager killed by Obama years before.
Likewise, while most Americans failed to show much opposition to the government’s disregard for Americans’ bodily integrity, shrugging their collective shoulders dismissively over reports of their fellow citizens being subjected to roadside strip searches, virtual strip searches, cavity searches, and other equally denigrating acts, hundreds of thousands mobilized to protest policies that could be advanced by the Trump administration that might demean or deny equal rights to individuals based on their gender or orientation or take away their reproductive planning choices. Similarly, while tens of thousands have gathered annually for a March for Life to oppose abortion, many of those same marchers seem to have no qualms about the government’s practice of shooting unarmed citizens and executing innocent ones.
This begs the question: What are Americans really protesting? Is it politics or principle?
Or is it just Trump?
For instance, in the midst of the uproar over Trump’s appointment of Steven Bannon to the National Security Council, his detractors have accused Bannon of being a propagandist, nationalist, and a white supremacist. Yet not one objection has been raised about the fact that the National Security Council authorizes secret, legal, targeted killings of American citizens (and others) without due process, a practice frequently employed by Obama.
The message coming across loud and clear: It’s fine for the government to carry out secret, targeted assassinations of American citizens without due process as long as the individuals advising the president aren’t neo-Nazis.
Of course, this national hypocrisy goes both ways.
Conveniently, many of the same individuals who raised concerns over Obama’s “lawless” use of executive orders to sidestep Congress have defended Trump’s executive orders as “taking us back to the Constitution.” And those who sounded the alarm over the dangers of the American police state have gone curiously silent in the face of Trump’s pledge to put an end to “the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America.”
We can’t have it both ways.
As long as we continue to put our politics ahead of our principles—moral, legal, and constitutional—“we the people” will lose.
And you know who will keep winning by playing on our prejudices, capitalizing on our fears, deepening our distrust of our fellow citizens, and dividing us into polarized, warring camps incapable of finding consensus on the one true menace that is an immediate threat to all of our freedoms? The U.S. government.
In her essay on “The Nature of Government,” Ayn Rand explains that the only “proper” purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. She continues: “The source of the government’s authority is ‘the consent of the governed.’ This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.”
When we lose sight of this true purpose of government—to protect our rights—and fail to keep the government in its place as our servant, we allow the government to overstep its bounds and become a tyrant that rules by brute force.
Rule by brute force. That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our republic.
SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Citizens being jailed for growing vegetable gardens in their front yards and holding prayer services in their backyards. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.
The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.
We are approaching critical mass.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it may already be too late to save our republic. We have passed the point of easy fixes. When the government and its agents no longer respect the rule of law—the Constitution—or believe that it applies to them, then the very contract on which this relationship is based becomes invalid.
So what is the answer?
Look to the past if you want to understand the future.
Too often, we look to the past to understand how tyrants come to power: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire; Hitler’s transformation of Germany into a Nazi state; the witch hunt tactics of the McCarthy Era.
Yet the past—especially our own American history—also teaches us valuable lessons about the quest for freedom. Here’s Rand again:
A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders’ “good intentions.” A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free—a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government. Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals–that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.
You want to save America? Then stop thinking like Republicans and Democrats and start acting like Americans.
The only thing that will save us now is a concerted, collective commitment to the Constitution’s principles of limited government, a system of checks and balances, and a recognition that they—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the police, the technocrats, and plutocrats and bureaucrats—work for us.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
What happened to the Donald Trump who campaigned for president, the one who embraced an anti-interventionist foreign policy for the U.S. under a Trump administration? Whose path is he now following, and how have the warmongers gotten into his brain in just his first 100 days in office?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Has President Donald Trump outsourced foreign policy to the generals? So it would seem. Candidate Trump held out his hand to Vladimir Putin. He rejected further U.S. intervention in Syria other than to smash ISIS.
He spoke of getting out and staying out of the misbegotten Middle East wars into which Presidents Bush II and Obama had plunged the country.
President Trump’s seeming renunciation of an anti-interventionist foreign policy is the great surprise of the first 100 days, and the most ominous. For any new war could vitiate the Trump mandate and consume his presidency.
Trump no longer calls NATO “obsolete,” but moves U.S. troops toward Russia in the Baltic and eastern Balkans. Rex Tillerson, holder of Russia’s Order of Friendship, now warns that the U.S. will not lift sanctions on Russia until she gets out of Ukraine.
If Tillerson is not bluffing, that would rule out any rapprochement in the Trump presidency. For neither Putin, nor any successor, could surrender Crimea and survive.
What happened to the Trump of 2016?
When did Kiev’s claim to Crimea become more crucial to us than a cooperative relationship with a nuclear-armed Russia? In 1991, Bush I and Secretary of State James Baker thought the very idea of Ukraine’s independence was the product of a “suicidal nationalism.”
Where do we think this demonization of Putin and ostracism of Russia is going to lead?
To get Xi Jinping to help with our Pyongyang problem, Trump has dropped all talk of befriending Taiwan, backed off Tillerson’s warning to Beijing to vacate its fortified reefs in the South China Sea, and held out promises of major concessions to Beijing in future trade deals.
“I like (Xi Jinping) and I believe he likes me a lot,” Trump said this week. One recalls FDR admonishing Churchill, “I think I can personally handle Stalin better than . . . your Foreign Office. . . . Stalin hates the guts of all your people. He thinks he likes me better.”
FDR did not live to see what a fool Stalin had made of him.
Among the achievements celebrated in Trump’s first 100 days are the 59 cruise missiles launched at the Syrian airfield from which the gas attack on civilians allegedly came, and the dropping of the 22,000-pound “Mother of All Bombs” bomb in Afghanistan.
But what did these bombings accomplish?
The War Party seems again ascendant. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are happy campers. In Afghanistan, the U.S. commander is calling for thousands more U.S. troops to assist the 8,500 still there, to stabilize an Afghan regime and army that is steadily losing ground to the Taliban.
Iran is back on the front burner. While Tillerson concedes that Tehran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, Trump says it is violating “the spirit of the agreement.”
How so? Says Tillerson, Iran is “destabilizing” the region, and threatening U.S. interests in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon.
But Iran is an ally of Syria and was invited in to help the UN-recognized government put down an insurrection that contains elements of al Qaeda and ISIS. It is we, the Turks, Saudis, and Gulf Arabs who have been backing the rebels seeking to overthrow the regime.
In Yemen, Houthi rebels overthrew and expelled a Saudi satrap. The bombing, blockading, and intervention with troops is being done by Saudi and Sunni Arabs, assisted by the U.S. Navy and Air Force.
It is we and the Saudis who are talking of closing the Yemeni port of Hodeida, which could bring on widespread starvation.
It was not Iran but the U.S. that invaded Iraq, overthrew the Baghdad regime, and occupied the country. It was not Iran that overthrew Col. Qadaffi and created the current disaster in Libya.
Monday, the USS Mahan fired a flare to warn off an Iranian patrol boat, 1,000 meters away. Supposedly, this was a provocation. But Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif had a point when he tweeted: “Breaking: Our Navy operates in—yes, correct—the Persian Gulf, not the Gulf of Mexico. Question is what U.S. Navy doing 7,500 miles from home.”
Who is behind the seeming conversion of Trump to hawk?
The generals, Bibi Netanyahu, and the neocons, congressional hawks with Cold War mindsets, the Saudi royal family, and the Gulf Arabs—they are winning the battle for the president’s mind.
And their agenda for America?
We are to recognize that our true enemy in the Mideast is not al Qaeda or ISIS, but Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, and his patron, Putin. And until Hezbollah is eviscerated, Assad is gone, and Iran is smashed the way we did Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, the flowering of Middle East democracy that we all seek cannot truly begin.
But before President Trump proceeds along the path laid out for him by his generals, brave and patriotic men that they are, he should discover if any of them opposed any of the idiotic wars of the last 15 years, beginning with that greatest of strategic blunders—George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
BY BROTHER NATHANAEL KAPNER
POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND AGENDAS have been historically part of Jewry’s quest for hegemony and domination in the affairs of nations.
In E. Michael Jones,’ “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History,” the author outlines through a tour of world history, Jewish political strategies designed to overturn Christian society from the times of Christ to the present day. (communism,feminism,neoconservatism,mass immigration to name a few)
Today, acting as a hostile elite, American Jewry’s political agenda is to bring about a “New American Order” by overthrowing the White Christian power bloc and replacing it with multi-culturalism wherein Jewry gains the upper hand through rivalries and divisions between racial groups.
Indeed, “pluralism,” now accepted as academia’s description of America’s cultural makeup, works to the Jew’s advantage by which he hides behind the cover of a diverse national complexion, while pulling the strings of political influence.
The watershed of American history — the critical turning point — was the passing of The Open Immigration Law of 1965, of which, its chief proponent, Senator Jacob Javits, proclaimed at its passage, “Open The Flood Gates!”
Joining Javits in the annihilation of White Christian America, were The American Council for Judaism, The Jewish Federation, B’nai B’rith, and the Jewish-run ACLU.
Passage of the legislation changed our historic immigration policy from a quota based preference system to one involving chain immigration where an unlimited number of families of immigrants were allowed entry.
The “floodgates” have indeed been opened. American Jewry made sure of it. Reacting to this tidal wave of Third World immigrants, white citizens of America are enclosing themselves in “implicit white communities” rather than fighting back POLITICALLY to prevent further ruination of their nation by the “hostile elite” which now rules America.
A NEW POLITICAL AGENDAPOLITICS IS A DEADLY SERIOUS BUSINESS for American Jewry. And controlling the levers of political influence is now clearly in the hands of the Zionist cabal.An in-your-face-demonstration of Jewry’s political hegemony is the arrival of Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court. With Kagan’s pending confirmation, — Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population — will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. (It is now 45%)
This political elite, as Dr Kevin MacDonald describes it, has permeated every area of American life: -1- The financial elite that profited from wholesale fraud in the mortgage market -2- The academic elite that excludes ideas related to a Christian world view -3- The media elite that supports an expansive ethno nationalism in Israel while condemning any hint of ethno nationalism in White Americans.
Throughout history, nations have passed laws prohibiting Jews from holding civil offices. Justinian the Great, Emperor of the Byzantine Christian Empire in the 6th Century, (Jews do not allow public schools to teach Byzantine history) codified in his Justinian Code that Jews should “hold no honors” in Byzantine civil life.
THIS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP of the Jews, as crystallized in the Justinian Code, was thus entrenched in the medieval world and remained the policy of monarchical rule until the Jewish-inspired French Revolution — and attained full cessation at the end of WW I with the Jewish-funded Russian Revolution.In today’s Western world, where “democracy” reigns supreme, preventing Jewry from civil rule is impossible. Democracy, a Zionist institution wherein Jewish money and media control determine election results, is an open field for continual and growing Jewish influence.