–The NDAA scandal continues: Now come the lies. Reassuring words to the gullible

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Buck McKeon, Chairman of the Armed Service Committe, and Rep. Mac Thornberry offer these reassuring words to the gullible masses, who believe what their rulers tell them.

Dispelling Myths and Misinformation About NDAA

Washington – Armed Services Committee Members Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Tim Griffin (R-AR) each firmly clarified and dismissed myths and misinformation about the National Defense Authorization Act and the detainee provisions in the conference report. Griffin’s radio segment and Thornberry’s thorough blog post on the matter are both included below:
“Griffin clears up the myths and misinformation of detainee language in the NDAA”

Rep. Mac Thornberry, December 15, 2011: There has been a fair amount of inaccurate information and misunderstanding about the final version of the Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA), which passed the House yesterday. The bill provides pay and benefits for our troops, buys the weapons and equipment they need, and funds research to help meet future threats. It is an important bill to pass because it helps carry out the first job of the federal government – our national defense.

Nothing like a little “support our troops” pseudo-patriotism and “national defense” fear mongering to soften you up.

There are some misunderstandings related to two provisions involving the detention of Al Qaeda terrorists. Over the past decade, the United States has detained members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups when they have been captured on the battlefield. In fact, some were released and had to be recaptured or killed because they went back to killing American soldiers. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have detained those individuals who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and the courts have affirmed the ability to do so under the U.S. Constitution. But, the specific authorization for detention was inferred from the Authorization to Use Military Force; it was not explicitly stated in statute.

But, how does the United States know whether someone is a member of Al Qaeda, the Talaban or an associated group, if the accused is not given a trial, no witnesses, no contact with the outside world and no attorney?

Are you, the reader, a member of an “associated group”? No? The President says you are, and there is no way you will be allowed prove otherwise. Go straight to an offshore, military jail – forever.

Some people have argued that these provisions allow a President to detain American citizens within the United States indefinitely if he brands them a terrorist. That is not true.

Here are two specific provisions from the bill. Read them yourself.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

If words have meaning, that is about as clear as English can get.

Some of the misunderstanding arose because there have been several versions of the bill language and previous versions did not have all of the protections that were in the final bill. Other misunderstanding came because some groups do not agree with current law. Some of them believe that all Al Qaeda terrorists should have the full constitutional rights of an American citizen, including the right to consult a lawyer, even on the battlefield.

Nonsense. A real straw man. Who has asked for a lawyer on the battlefield? Oh, yes, I forgot. Now all of America is considered a battlefield. The misleading phrase, “war on terrorism” is twisted to indicate there is an actual war in America. It’s a perfect demonstration of how familiar words can be corrupted to deceive. And again, how does one know if a person is an Al Qaeda terrorist, if no evidence is presented?

And really, do you feel it’s O.K for America to deny basic rights to someone who is not a citizen. It is all right for the President to point at a non-citizen and announce, “You are going to a secret prison, forever”? Is this what being a patriotic American means?

Those debates will continue. But the purpose of this bill was to put into statute the current legal standard agreed upon by two administrations and the courts. I’m afraid that some well-intentioned people have been agitated for reasons that just don’t exist. That does not mean that Congress should not continue to examine this issue. There may be legislative improvements that need to be made. We must protect Americans from Al Qaeda and other terrorists and at the same time protect our individual rights and liberties under the Constitution. We can do both.

Did you see anything about evidence or trial or innocent-until-proven-guilty? I didn’t. And note the little weasel word “requirement.” The requirementmay not extend to citizens, but what about the option? What specifically prevents the military from detaining a person in miliary custody? Nothing. Certainly not the Constitution, since that document now is considered obsolete by Congress, the President and the military.

Further, what is the sudden need for this? Haven’t we been told that bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is weakened and on the run. Why, after all these years of successfully battling and weakening Al Qaeda, suddenly Congress decides to do away with Habeas Corpus?

I’ll tell you where I believe this comes from: The combination of Arab spring and #Occupy Wall Street makes the powers-that-be nervous. They want to be able to arrest all those messy “trouble-makers” – you know, those crowds of people demanding justice – without the inconvenience of probable cause, evidence and trials. Just clap those folks into a military prison, preferably somewhere out of the country, and that will solve the “war” problem.

Don’t believe the “patriotic” stories you will be fed. Don’t believe, for instance, that some innocent Muslim somehow acquired a bomb loaded plane to crash into the Pentagon, as the newspapers reported. Don’t believe this bill is for the purpose of defending America against terrorists. It’s all a sham to keep you under control. Stalin would be proud.

As I said in the previous post, it will be interesting to see how our “originalist,” right-wing, Supreme Court justices feel about it — you know, those guys claim to know what the founding fathers wanted.

Ben Franklin was a founding father. He said those who would trade security for freedom deserve neither.

My prediction: There will be lots more twisting, turning and squirming, where you will be told “up” really means “down,” and lies are truth.

1984 is here, just a couple decades late.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Patriots in Congress approve what Osama bin Laden failed to accomplish.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

That seems clear enough. ” . . .the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial . . .” . . . be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” You don’t need to be a Constitutional scholar to understand the plain language.

So why did the Senate approve the National Defense Authorization Act by a 93 to 7 vote and why did the House approve it 322 to 96? The NDAA says the United States is a battlefield, so the military can indefinitely detain any American citizen perceived to be a threat.

Think about it. If someone in the government perceives you to be a threat, they can lock you up and throw the key away. No proof necessary. No lawyer. No trial. Just a perception.

So let’s say that you comment to your friend that Obama stinks. Obama could “perceive” you to be a threat, or even claim he perceives you to be a threat, and you’re gone.

Wrote a nasty note to your Congressman? You’re a threat. Goodby.
Your Senator has designs on your wife, and you’re standing in the way. So long, threat.
You’re dunning the President for a debt he owes you? Adios.
You decide to run against the President, and he feels you’re an election threat? Bad news.
You’re Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, gay, elderly, a protester, fat, Japanese descent, homeless, part of #OWS? You’re a threat. Off with you.

Hard to believe? The VigilantCitizen web site says:

According to Firedoglake.com, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA will:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

AddictingInfo.org adds:

A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial.

In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.

Here’s what Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) says:

It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, “I want my lawyer,” you tell them, “Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer”.

So how does the patriot Senator Graham know that someone decided to help Al Qaeda? He doesn’t have to know, since there will be no lawyer, no accusation, no evidence, no witness, no trial and no communication. The person Sen. Graham dislikes simply will disappear. Could be you.

The bill literally makes it possible for President Obama to declare the entire Republican Congress to be a threat, and have them all arrested without trail, without attorneys or even without accusations. While many feel this may be a good thing for America, don’t believe it’s impossible. It has happened in many countries, and there is no reason America is an exception. Russia and China do it all the time.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment that would have prohibited U.S. citizens from being held in indefinite detention without being charged or brought to a trial. Incredibly, this amendment failed by a vote of our patriotic Senators, 45 to 55.

The good news is Obama threatened to veto the bill. The bad news is, his threat is based on the bill not being tough enough. He said, “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.”

Supposedly, the bill is to protect us from terrorists who also are U.S. citizens. But, are you really in more danger of being killed by a U.S. citizen, who also is a terrorist, or by a local gang or a robber or some other criminal? Think about it. How many U.S. citizen terrorists have you heard of, versus the number of street criminals you’ve heard of?

What did Osama bin Laden want? What has Congress now accomplished? Sound similar?

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would trade liberty to purchase safety,
deserve neither. And isn’t it ironic that those who consider themselves the greatest patriots are the first to take away our freedoms.

It will be interesting to learn what our “originalist” Supreme Court says about this blatant violation of the United States Constitution.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

I award Senators John McCain, Carl Levin, Lindsay Graham and all in Congress who voted to destroy our Constitutional protections of freedom, four traitor images. (Yes, yes, I know. McCain was a war hero. But confinement must have done something to his brain. He’s no hero, now.)

I recommend they all be arrested without charge, trial, counsel or communication.

How could they complain?

http://www.rodgermitchell.com

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Congress says many people worked more than 50 jobs in just this past year

Really. According to the Republican House job-counting system, you yourself may have worked more than 50 jobs last year. How?

Read these quotes gleaned from today’s Fact Checker web site and Washington Post.

Approved on a vote of 234 to 193, the Republican tax bill would extend a one-year break in the payroll tax that is due to expire at the end of the month, setting the rate at 4.2 percent for the year instead of allowing it to revert to 6.2 percent. But it also would accelerate the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast that the White House is determined to slow down.

True to the “Stockholm Syndrome” theory of governance, the politicians want you to be grateful to them for not needlessly stealing your money.

To fund the tax cut, the measure would freeze pay for civilian federal workers for another year and reduce the government workforce.

It would extend benefits for the long-term unemployed but reform the unemployment insurance program to reduce the maximum time those out of work can receive benefits, from 99 weeks to 59 weeks. It also would allow states to require drug testing for benefits.

The measure would postpone scheduled cuts in Medicare re-imbursement rates for doctors but pay for the “doc fix” by raising Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors and eliminating some funding for the federal health-care law.

Rather than tax the upper 1%, or more properly, lower taxes for everyone, the Republicans wish to take from the middle and lower classes, then give some back. That is called a “benefit.”

House Speaker John Boehner said the House has acted on the tax issue, and he suggested that it is now up to the Senate to move as well or let the tax cut expire.

Boehner (R-Ohio), Dec. 10, 2011 “The American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’ The House is listening, and we’ve passed a large bill that contains many of the priorities of our caucus and the White House. At a time when many are without work, it is time that we come together in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation which will create tens of thousands of new jobs.”

Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Dec. 12, 2011 “The privately financed Keystone XL pipeline project is projected to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in construction and manufacturing.”

Mark H. Ayers, president of the building and construction trade department, AFL-CIO, Nov. 3, 2011 “My administration will stand behind the Keystone pipeline, creating more than 100,000 American jobs while reducing our dependence on overseas imports.”

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (R), Nov. 1, 2011 “There is bipartisan consensus: The Keystone XL pipeline means jobs, jobs, jobs.”

A key question for the administration is how many jobs the Keystone XL project would create. TransCanada’s initial estimate of 20,000 — which it said includes 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 jobs among supply manufacturers — has been widely quoted by lawmakers and presidential candidates.

[TransCanada chief executive Russ] Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500.

Got that? When the Republicans say the Keystone pipeline would create up to 100,000 jobs, they really are talking about a new measure called “job years.” So if, for instance, you have been working 10 years, the Republicans say you have worked ten jobs.

But wait. Why stop at job years? How about job months? If you had a job all of 2011, you actually worked 12 jobs, according to Republican math. But wait, again. Why stop at months? Do you realize the job you’ve held all year counts as 365 jobs (days).

Oh, it goes on and on. Using Republican statistics, we can calculate job hours, job minutes, even job seconds, and compute that the pipeline will create not thousands, not tens of thousands, but billions of jobs. What unemployment problem? America has trillions of jobs.

And voters believe this stuff.

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” H. L. Mencken

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–How the politicians convince you to take money from your pocket and flush it

As I’ve been harping on, the debt-hawk effort to reduce the federal deficit has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal prudence, living within our means, not indebting our children, or any other fiscal platitude. It is part of a program designed to increase the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich. Period.

In that vein, here is a survey I received from my Senator, Mark Kirk:

Should Congress cut contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund (replacing these losses with downgraded Treasury debt) in effort to stimulate the economy?
Yes_____
No _____
Do not know _____

He accompanies this survey with a letter that reads, in part:

Social Security is not a welfare program. It is a retirement security program funded by contributions from each American worker to support senior citizens who met their Social Security obligations when they were asked to contribute to the system.

Congress is considering both Democratic and Republican proposals to cut contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund (also called the “payroll tax”) to stimulate the economy. The government would attempt to recoup these new losses to the Social Security Trust Fund by borrowing more, using downgraded U.S. government bonds. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and I agree that we should protect Social Security’s Trust Fund . . .

So far, 83.97% of the respondents answered, “No,” meaning they do not want the FICA tax to be reduced. They want more money taken from their pockets and added to a mythical Trust Fund. You can’t fool all the people, all the time, but apparently you can fool 83.97% of them.

First, there is no trust fund. It is an accounting fiction, debited and credited at will, by the federal government.

Second, FICA doesn’t pay for Social Security any more than you can identify which of your tax dollars pay for any other federal spending. The government spends by crediting bank accounts, without regard to taxes, then debiting the general fund. Payroll taxes are not held separate from income taxes. (Truth be told, no taxes are “held.” They all are destroyed upon receipt. But that’s another story.)

Third, the government, being Monetarily Sovereign, doesn’t need to borrow dollars it has the unlimited ability to create.

Fourth, S&P’s downgrading of U.S. debt is yet another fraudulent act by the company that rated worthless mortgage securities, “AAA.”

Fifth, downgrading U.S. debt has no adverse effect on the U.S. economy. It doesn’t affect interest rates (the Fed controls rates), and even if it increased rates, the effect would be positive. High rates are stimulative, because they add federal dollars to the economy.)

Sixth, the question itself is a dishonest, two-part exercise in obfuscation. Most two-part questions are dishonest. Consider: “Should you send your child to school, thereby intentionally exposing him to the risks of deadly, communicable diseases, serious accidents, rampant crime, relentless bullying and bad teaching?” Yes or no?

Is this an honest question about school attendance? Is the statement that SS Trust Fund losses must be replaced with “downgraded Treasury debt” honest? Of course not.

All of this is part of the attempt to have you willingly flush your money down the toilet, increase the gap, and not blame the Republicans for increasing SS taxes. It is a scam far greater than anything Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of.

Think of the trillions that have been taken from working people under the guise of “insurance.” Even the name “FICA” — Federal Insurance Contributions Act — is a lie. It’s not insurance.

FICA, and indeed the entire tax system, is nothing more than a financial version of the Stockholm Syndrome.

In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. (Wikipedia)

Do you defend politicians, who vote to tax you a bit less, mistaking the reduced tax abuse for kindness? Do you accept your tax abuse, because you believe the government’s fables about the need for austerity?

If so, welcome to tax mythology, where you, the voter, are a puppet, and the richest 1% pull your strings.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: