AMERICA SHOULD BE DEEPLY DISTURBED ABOUT RABBLE ROUSER JOHN MCCAIN.
MCCAIN IS A ROTHSCHILD OPERATIVE WORKING AGAINST THE LOYALTY OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND IS AN OPERATIVE INSIDE ROTHSCHILD’S SECRET SOCIETY NAMED ‘COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS’ THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS HAS NO LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OPERATES OUT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK!
- Public Health statistics show that death from acts of terrorism is less likely than death from dog bites, from lightning strikes, from diarrhea, and from misadventure with bathtubs and vending machines.
MCCAIN’S LOYALTY IS TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER‘S BANKING CABAL – HIS JOB IS TO START WARS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF HUMANITARIAN – THUS WARS ARE STARTED AND U.S. FOES ARE PUT IN CHARGE OF THE VICTIM NATION STATE‘S CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM WHICH IS BY ROTHSCHILD. YOU ARE EITHER FLOODED OUT BY PRINTED BAILOUTS AND IF YOUR NATION REFUSES – THE CIA GOES IN TO CAUSE THE AUSPICE OF HUMANITARIAN NEED DUE TO TERRORISM AND WAHLA!
THE MARCH TO OLD WORLD OLIGARCHY VIA THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND THROUGH THE FINANCIAL POWER OF ROTHSCHILD AND THE MILITARY OF POWER OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTED BY BOUGHT OFF POLITICIANS LIKE LIEBERMAN, MCCAIN, & ANAL REPROBATE LINDSEY GRAHAM. Outed New World Order Homosexual Lindsey Graham: Wants To Shutdown Congress.
United States Senator John McCain :: Home
06.27.10 Orchestrated Housing Bubble – McCain Erases 100,000 Middle Class Jobs On F-22 Raptor – While Obama Prints Out Trillions Of Fabricated Debt For Britain’s Banks
United States Waking Up To Rockefeller’s RHINO – Johnny McCain – Johnny Hates America For The Wrong Reasons!
A federal judge has told the Obama administration that all Americans are protected by her preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a citizen detention clause in a new federal law supported by Obama.
The federal government had told the judge it concluded that her recent ruling exempted only the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision.
That interpretation would have enabled the government to enforce the detention provision against all Americans except the plaintiffs.
U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest shot back in a new Memorandum Opinion and Order yesterday that said because the possible injury to Americans includes the loss of their rights, her order was intended to protect everyone.
To Repeal Section 1021 of
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011
Whereas Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, on 31 December 2011, signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011; and
Whereas the aforementioned Act is repugnant to all American ideals, traditions, customs, and laws, inasmuch as it sets at naught all traditions and principles of Law and Justice derived from nine centuries of legal custom enshrined in the Common Law of the English-speaking Peoples, and derived from Magna Carta Libertatum of the 13th century and from theConstitution of the United States, as amended; and Whereas the Congress of the United States, in passing this hateful Act, did act without the authority of the Constitution of the United States, as amended;
- Pope Benedict XVI Condemns Banking Cartel’s Reality Replacement: Such As McCain’s CFR, Rothschild’s Bank Bailouts, & Citizen Debt Enslavement!
- Obama’s Debt Ceiling Is A Diversion: Real Problem, Is Not Defunding $14.2 Trillion Debt & Bailouts, To Rothschild’s Wallstreet Banking Cartel = Fascist State Of NWO.
- Banker’s White House Longs For “Yet To Be Vetted” Mitt Romney: Romney Like CFR Agent John McCain, Are Orchestrated To Loose!and Whereas the aforementioned Act is unlawful, inasmuch as it violates both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States in numerous particulars, to wit, Article I, Section nine, which specifically prohibits the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which Writ has a 900-year-long tradition among the English-speaking Peoples of the world, rendering thus the aforementioned Act repugnant to the ideals, customs, and interests of a Free People; andWhereas the aforementioned Act further violates our country’s Constitution both in letter and in spirit by effectively, if not specifically, replacing the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus with the ancient and tyrannical custom of attainder, which tyrannical custom was outlawed not only by Magna Carta Libertatum in the 13th century, but also by the Constitution of the United States in the 18th century,in and by which it is specifically forbidden under Article I, Section nine, insofar as the aforementioned Act suspends the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence and to the ancient protection of Habeas Corpus, thereby condemning to extrajudicial punishment any and all persons, including American Citizens, who might be accused under the aforementioned Act;and Whereas the aforementioned Act further violates, both in letter and in spirit, the Bill of Rights of the United States in numerous particulars, to wit, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment;and Whereas the practical grounds that are held by the federal government to warrant the anti-terror portions of this odious Act are, in fact, themselves groundless, given that Public Health statistics show that death from acts of terrorism is less likely than death from dog bites, from lightning strikes, from diarrhea, and from misadventure with bathtubs and vending machines.
DEADBEAT SENATORS Who Insisted On Removing U.S. Citizens Miranda Rights And Detaining Them In Prison Indefinitely!
McCain (R-AZ)DEADBEAT SENATOR MCCAIN’S SEDITION ACT AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
“The injunction in this action is intentionally expansive because ‘persons whose expression is constitutionally protected [and not party to the instant litigation] may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression,’” Forrest wrote.
On May 16 she issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act. The section allows indefinite detention of people designated by the government as terrorists or terror-linked.
The law allows them to be held without hearing, charges or bond – essentially without their civil rights. And their detention can be indefinite.
The Obama administration asked for reconsideration and said it was interpreting the injunction as a protection only for the individual plaintiffs.
Wrong, the judge wrote.
“The law has long provided that this type of finding has provided relief to both the parties pursuing the challenge, as well as third parties not before the court,” she lectured. “This court’s preliminary injunction was consistent with that precedent. Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court – or by Congress.”
She continued: “Here, plaintiffs argue that they and others could be subject to indefinite military detention under Section 1021 (b)(2); accordingly, the public interest in ensuring that ordinary citizens understand the scope of such a statute justifies its breadth.”
WND previously has reported on the dispute, which has gathered significant attention already. The law is based on a vague provision that appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights and the detention of citizens linked to terrorism.
Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.
The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.
Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”
The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.
The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.
Titus said the opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”
She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”
“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”
“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote.
“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.
Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.
The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations, including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.
“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.
Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.
Marshall then wrote leaders in state legislatures around the country suggesting similar votes in their states.
Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our new law goes into effect on July 1, 2012.”
He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.”
Endorsing Marshall’s plan was the Japanese American Citizens League, which cited the detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II on no authorization other than the president’s signature.
- Repealing Of Deadbeat Senators McCain & Lieberman’s Indefinite Detention Of U.S. Citizens: List Of DEADBEAT SENATORS Who Insisted On Removing U.S. Citizens Miranda Rights And Detaining Them In Prison Indefinitely! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Ron Paul: Repeal The 1913 Rothschild Federal Reserve: The Hidden Treasonists! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Activist James Morris Confronts John McCain for Ignoring Israeli Attack of USS Liberty (salem-news.com)
- Obama Embraces Former Rival McCain (huffingtonpost.com)
- U.S. Federal Judge Strikes Down McCain’s NDAA (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Undoing Bill Clinton’s Destruction To The United States: Restoring FDR’s Glass Steagall Act That Clinton Repealed.
- Super Pacs, Facebook & Psy-Ops: Recap ~ Bribery Of America By McCain’s CFR Control Of Propaganda News!
- Obama Biden Administration Activating Chains Of Fema Camps Across The United States To Inter American Citizens! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Should Obama and Congress Be Arrested Under the NDAA? (mountainrepublic.net)
- 100 Million Americans In Or Approaching Poverty: Treasonist & CFR’s Mikhail Gorbachev “Our Aim Is To Disarm The Americans And Let Them Fall Asleep.” (politicalvelcraft.org)