When Firearms are Confiscated, Innocents are Betrayed

JPFO | DECEMBER 27, 2012

In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term “democratic” countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where “gun control” ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Three Elements For Human Suffering Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that “bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education.” Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the “poverty, disease, and ignorance” explanation
for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people
and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win.

Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful. On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider “gun control” ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. “Gun control” laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?” The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.
Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations. All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:
When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.
The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Can All Evil Be Prevented?

Is an armed population absolutely safe from all invasion and persecution? No. But we have to consider the incentives of the aggressors. The better question is: will an invader or persecutor be more likely or less likely to attack an armed civilian population? Or, given a choice, would an invader or persecutor more often choose to afflict an armed population or an unarmed population?

It is possible to imagine scenarios where an armed population cannot do anything to protect itself against nuclear attack, for example. Such scenarios suggest only that no defense strategy is perfect, and that Evil can find a way to hurt and kill people. Overall, however, an armed population stands a much better chance of freedom from attack, persecution and slaughter than does an unarmed population.

History shows that Evil forces look for populations to enslave and annihilate. Evil selects those populations where it can operate with the least cost to itself. It is thus both a moral and practical imperative for populations to possess and learn to effectively use firearms for defense of self, family, community, and nation.

We hope this answers your question about the need and effectiveness of widespread private ownership of firearms.

Watch the film Innocents Betrayed below:

Resources

(1) Innocents Betrayed – the video documentary – makes a strong case because it presents the pictures and the flesh and blood reality of how the powerful can so easily destroy the powerless. It shows also how “gun control” laws are instrumental in paving the way for destruction.

(2) Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament is our book upon which Innocents Betrayed is based. The book does not talk about the Second Amendment – it talks about the problem of disarmed citizens vs. powerful forces, and it develops further how the rhetoric of “gun control” leads to a deadly physical and moral paralysis.

(3) Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, takes a different tack from our book. While our book focuses on the civilian disarmament issues, Prof. Rummel looks at the political systems that create the situations that make genocides and mass persecutions possible … even inevitable.

Barack Obama at the head of anti-Second Amendment movement in the United States

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 18, 2012

Barack Obama has pledged to lead a new national crackdown on firearms, with some prohibitions, greater legal controls and a new approach to personal safety that requires a profound transformation of the dominant culture in the United States. For the first time in decades, the tragedy of Newtown, different from previous ones in several circumstances, is being used to launch a massive attack on the second amendment, which clearly states that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and that the government cannot legislate against that constitutional right in any way, shape or form.

The issue of gun ownership is one that is little understood by most Americans. After the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, people all over the United States showed up at police departments to hand in their guns and according to recently taken polls, upwards of 50 percent of the population now believes that the idea of limiting gun rights is a positive thing. Perhaps they have been overwhelmed by the fear instigated by the main stream media, which have used the shooting at the Sandy Hook school to call for massive gun restrictions. People cannot see that if there is one thing that should be understood after the shooting is that the government cannot protect them, and that their protection is their responsibility.

Not only have many congressmen shown opposition to firearm ownership, but a large number of them have been quietly working on legislation to limit them, some of the most loyal supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA), such as Sen. Joe Machin, a member of the powerful lobby for years, yesterday joined the supporters of imposing tighter controls. “It is time to move beyond the rhetoric, we need to sit down and do something,” he said.

Indeed, it is a new time. The country lives under a shock like never before. Millions of parents that Monday morning left their children at school have yet to experience the dreadful outcome of the crime perpetrated at the Sandy Hook school last Friday. The shooting did not make them understand that it is their responsibility to protect their own children. Children, teachers and families are always talking about it, how something so horrible could happen, what needs to be done so that does not happen again, but they seem unable to rationalize and come up with the right answer.

Obama picked up the popular sentiment in a speech on Sunday night in Newtown, which promised to use “all power” in his hands to carry out significant change. It is very likely that this is the great cause of his second term and certainly an ambitious one, since at least 80 million people in the United States are gun owners. We can expect two outcomes, if the Obama White House really attempts to enact a massive gun ban: The first would result in the mass enslavement of the population, should the majority of those 80 million decide to hand in their weapons. This is all the government wants. The second, if those 80 million stand their ground and refuse to hand the firearms, but the government imposes some kind of gun confiscation policy the country may be on the way to experience another civil war.

A civil war would not be new. In fact, a minority of Americans fought a war against British imperialism to keep their right to own firearms, after the English crown called for the citizens to hand in their guns. The outcome was the defeat of the British and the Americans kept their right to keep and bear arms. If the U.S. government decides to impose a ban on the possession of firearms and law enforcement decides to comply with such task, we are in the works for one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States.

The Media and the Propaganda

“We can not accept events like this as routine. Are we willing to accept that we are powerless over a slaughter of this nature? What policy does not allow us to act? Are we willing to say that violence attacking our children year after year is just the price we pay for our freedom,” asked Barack Obama. “No law can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent acts of senseless violence in our society. But that can not be an excuse for doing nothing. ”

“We have to change,” Obama said. The problem for Obama is that for him to weaken or completely eliminate the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, he will have to fight with half of the country and more precisely with a growing minority that understands now more than ever that owning guns has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting themselves from mentally ill people. Many pro second amendment people are asking what would have happened if the principal of the Sandy Hook school had been a gun owner, or if the teachers had been trained to use guns and had one of their own. Other states and cities around the United States have asked that same question and have voted to give teachers the legal right to own firearms.

Besides the need to defend themselves, pro second amendment Americans will offer firm opposition to Obama, Congress and the main stream corporate media by supporting the concept of freedom as inalienable patrimony of the individual in the U.S., which is  subjected to the constant threat of collectivist state authority. This collectivism is reflected in Obama’s last speech when he called for all Americans to support his gun ban project. “If we want to educate and protect our children, we are going to have to do together,” said the president.

Those words are a challenge to the idea that a child’s safety is the responsibility of the family and not the government. Millions of Americans share the principle that the protection of a child is the sole and exclusive obligation of the parents or close relatives. In that same idea of ​​individual responsibility, which has many positive applications, children are educated and raised to become the best in their communities. Children who are homeschooled, and who are taught real family and social values are more successful as members of a community.

Challenging the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as suggested by Obama will obviously hit a very sensitive fiber; one of the most sensitive at the core of American existence. This country was founded on individual freedom, and this explains why the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Those who seek to challenge the second amendment say that limits must be imposed for the safety of the collective, clearly missing the core principles upon which their country was founded. Most of these people are domesticated Americans who actually believe that the government knows better how to protect them, even though the federal government has failed time after time, after time. Fear has taken its toll.

Translating political rhetoric into concrete action will not be easy. Any legislative process to impose greater controls on firearm ownership will be costly all around. The forces opposed to the regulation of weapons — the citizenry — will not go away overnight. Even after controlled opposition such as the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party failed to come out in defense of the second amendment, other organization like Gun Owners of America and the average folk himself will not let the latest tragedy run away with his right to hold on to their guns to protect himself and his family.

In the U.S. Congress, it is expected that most Republican congressmen will bend over and allow the fake liberal, progressive movement, to which the U.S. president belong, to impose some kind of limitation to the second amendment. Plans have already been drawn by people like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to attack the second amendment.

New gun laws will not fix anything. The problem in the United States is not one of a ‘gun culture’ but one of a mentally ill population, that is drugged up to their eyeballs while suffering the worst crisis of identity in the history of the country. The fake multiculturalism, the racial division, the lack of accountability of both government and corporate American and the hatred campaigns secretly being supported by government grants or tax-exempted NGO’s have devastated the core of the of the greatest nations in history.

Prohibiting or greatly limiting gun ownership will not only not solve the problem of violence in the American society. In fact, it will make it worse. If today gun-free zones such as schools, churches, malls and sporting events are sweet targets mentally ill people to pull out a gun and kill anyone they want, imagine what will happen in the United States if the country as a whole becomes a gun-free zone.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Spanish Delegate wants to Ban Public Protests

By LUIS MIRANDA| THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 3, 2012

Cristina Cifuentes wants to limit the right of the Spanish people to protest in public.

No self-entitled bureaucrat likes to be contested, questioned or responded to. Despite the existence of a constitutional right to publicly protest on the streets, there are people who think it is a good idea to limit or simply ban such action. In fact, there are people who support banning or limiting public protests while encouraging police violence against protestors.

This is the case of Cristina Cifuentes, a Madrid Delegate who last week praised the acts of police brutality against some of the thousands of protesters that arrived outside Congress to raise the heat against the deadly austerity measures imposed by the Mariano Rajoy administration. On Tuesday, Ms. Cifucentes went beyond its praise of violence to call for legal reform to limit and eventually ban public protesting.

It’s not me, it’s the law, said Cifuentes on Friday after a colleague of hers, Ana Botella, complained about “too many” demonstrations in the capital of Spain. On Tuesday, Cifuentes said that the law is “very permissive and wide” regarding the right of assembly and that the demonstration was out of control. She questioned whether it was necessary to debate and approve the imposition of limits to the right to protest.

Although Cifuentes commented on such limitations in a very spontaneous way, she rapidly proposed to put in place “modular” laws to “rationalize the use of public space.” The bureaucrat also attempted to clarify that it would not change the Constitution, but it would check out the Organic Law governing this right, not to “cut it” but to expand the room for maneuvering that the Administrations has to change routes and schedules.

Cifuentes’ speech is very well known in other parts of the world such as the United States, where the government called for ‘rational’ ways to limit free speech and protesting by designing a plan through which people could only protest in so-called ‘free speech zones’. These zones are designated by the government and are usually located far, far away from public offices or events such as G10 meetings or secretive encounters of world re-known philanthropists.

But what does the Spanish Constitution say about public protesting?

The right of expression and assembly, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which reads: “The right of peaceful assembly, without arms. The exercise of this right shall not require prior authorization.” Add that to the “case of meetings in public places and events,” will  need to inform “the authority,” which can only forbid it if there are “substantial grounds for disorderly conduct, endangering persons or property” .

This last sentence is very important, because it is from there where people like Cifuentes may seek the legal backing to impose limitation to  both free speech and public protesting. As it has happened in many occasions, governments could use agent provocateurs to cause disorderly conduct, hurt police or protesters in order to limit the right of the peaceful mass to protest in front of Congress, for example.

In an interview with National Public Radio (RNE), Cifuentes reiterated that Madrid is “a complicated city because demonstrations are permanent and disproportionate”, a view based on one fact that people in Spain are sick and tired of government robbing them of their livelihoods and decided to take to the streets in numerous occasions. There have been almost 2,200 rallies and demonstrations in Madrid this year. Last Friday alone 2732 stood outside Congress and thousands more occupied the same place on Saturday and Sunday. Back in  2011 there were 1380 public demonstrations.

“The theme of the protests is a timely issue that is given by the political moment and encouraged because there are groups trying to get on the street that have failed at the ballot box,” she argued, blaming the Socialists without naming them, for the increase of street protests.

Cifuentes said that she knows there is a Constitutional right to protest in public, but that the rights of the rest of the people are also as important, which is the reason why she is proposing to limit or ban such activity. This is the traditional collectivist point of view that seeks to impose a particular way of thinking and is often excused by the ‘it is in the best interests of the majority’ argument.

Cifuentes is proposing a ‘compatible solution’ with the right of the rest of the population “to be in a livable city.” According to her, this means that people are “able to move with ease, without incidents, riots, or problems of public order.” In this sense, Cifuentes defends changes in legislation, but has not detailed how it would work. “What I want is to open a debate because any amendment must be adopted by a broad consensus.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

NSA Whistleblower: “We are headed towards a Police State”

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

According to former National Security Agency employee, Kirk Wiebe, the agency had the capability to grab everyone’s data even before 9/11. He said that the terrorist events of 2001 were a trigger for the NSA to act with complete disregard for the US Constitution and mainly the Forth Amendment.

Wiebe and his fellow whistleblower Thomas Drake, explain that the terrorist attacks gave the NSA and the US government an excuse to get military contractors involved in the creation of a broader surveillance state that provides no limits whatsoever to what government agencies such as the NSA can do with any piece of information from US citizens or even people who reside abroad.

As it stands today, the power of the NSA is simply unchecked. Drake says that inside the agency there is a widely held belief that it is necessary to trade anonymity for security, which is the opposite of what the United States founding fathers advised people to do. When asked about whether the United States could unwind the powers afforded to the NSA and other government agencies, he referred viewers to the secretive ways in which the NSA misbehaved in 1960s and 70s to conclude that it is not possible to simply trust the agency or anything it does today.

The questions back in the 60s and 70s was whether or not the availability of a technical capacity to spy on everyone, as it is done today, could be manageable to avoid abuse, or even further, if it could be rolled back. According to Drake, the question is why would people trust the NSA anymore than it did in the 60s and 70s, when it was well-known that the agency was operating above the law?

When questioned about whether the United States was moving towards becoming a tyrannical state, just as other nations like North Korea or China, Kirk Wiebe was clear and succinct: “In my estimation we are. We are headed towards a Police State.” Wiebe candidly recounted how the current intelligence operations led by the NSA look a lot like Gestapo or like Stasi in Germany. “We are moving in that direction. People are trashing the Constitution. They’ve lost their respect for it.

He also told viewers how he had written congressman Rosco Bartlet about his concerns and how the answer he got back from Mr. Bartlet was as astonishing as the concerns he posed on the letter regarding privacy and legislation. Congressman Bartlet responded that the thing that gave him confidence about the creation and approval of spectacular powers given to the NSA and other government agencies was that “everything was being done in good faith.”

 

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

Impeachable Offenses by Obama and the U.S. Congress

The time for informing and educating is over. The time to hold government accountable for their unconstitutional actions is here.

By LUIS R. MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 12, 2012

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” How could George Washington get it so dead on right? Everything that government is known better for in modern society is its use of force to impose unreasonable policies and rules — not laws — to clamp down on personal freedom and individual rights. I am not talking about the government of the people, of course, but the corporate whore government.

When two branches of government, in any kind of setting — a Republic, a Tyranny, a Socialist nation, a Communist nation and so on — are controlled not by the people who gave it the right exist, but by corporate interests, the result is what we see growing today in countries like the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, the UK and Russia, to cite a few. When the office of the president and the offices of congress are revolving doors for corporate puppets to go in and out at will, the people’s grip on government has been lost.

If the people allow this to happen and to continue without any checks and balances, it will grow into the kind of invincible monster that will transform any self-fulfilling nightmare prophecy into reality. This is the stage where we are now, no matter where you live. Corporate control of government has gone from rare to absolute. Corporate-controlled government has many faces, among them: Communism, Socialism and Fascism. They were all creations of ancient schools of thought that saw an opportunity to become masters through division, balkanization and conquest. Those ancient schools of thought evolved into a XXI century perverse technocracy which is now almost 100 percent in control of the planet.

It is because humanity has lost sight of what government should do and should not do, that people now need to do their due diligence as it should have done it many years ago. It is time to put checks and balances on government.  Many years have gone by since individuals woke up to the abuses of the corporate-controlled State in all its shapes and forms. Corporations grew off government as rampant tumors that were never treated, much less healed. Apathy and ignorance fueled those tumors just like any chemotherapy toxicity does in a human body; except that this toxicity is social toxicity. Conformed, ignorant and apathetic people allowed the tumors to spread wide and at will throughout the complete ‘social body’ and now, the cancer is in stage 3, continuing to take over.

The only medicine available that will help cure the rotting ‘social body’ is swift but decisive action. The time to inform and educate is over. Those who are not with us need to be left behind in order for the informed, growing minority to act. Action must start where the cancer originated a long, long time ago.

Whether you like it or not, the United States was for many decades — not by chance — artificially sustained as the shiny white house on the hill. It was there that modern Fascism began. Borrowing Dave Mustane’s words: “You take a mortal man, and put him in control, watch him become a god, watch peoples heads a’roll.” This scenario runs over and over in both government and privately owned corporations. Given the United States privileged position in the world today, even with so much decadence going on there, it is in the United States where the main battle to curb tyranny will take place. It is certainly there where many have gotten inspiration to become powerful and rich, and not necessarily for the better.

After passing legislation such as NAFTA, CAFTA, the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization, The Cybersecurity Bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, ACTA, and many other bills that basically rendered the Constitution obsolete, both the US Congress and the US presidents who participated of these actions, must be held accountable. Action has begun, although it needs much support. In response to Barack Obama’s and his cabinet’s dismissal of the Constitution and Congress itself, Representative Walter Jones, recently introduced House Resolution 107, a bill that seeks to enforce what laws that are already in place explicitly condemn and prohibit, but that the accomplice Congressmen and women, and for that matter the American people have failed to enforce: That it is unconstitutional for a US president to carry out military actions without a previous declaration of war by Congress, whereby the sitting US president becomes the commander in chief of the Armed Forces.

As many already know, Barack Obama himself as well as his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, declared that they would consider informing Congress about any future military engagements the country got into, as supposed to asking for authorization in the first place. When pressed by congressman Jeff Sessions, Panetta repeated himself and confirmed that the Executive branch and the Pentagon intended to launch military strikes with the approval of international organizations, but not from the US Congress. Previously, Obama said that if — in a variety of situations — Congress did not act, he would do so alone, by decree, using executive orders as laws. Does anyone smell Dictatorship? Indeed. And Obama has already acted upon such warning. He illegally authorized military intervention in Libya without consulting Congress about it, much less getting authorization or a war declaration. This, by the Constitution of the United States, is an impeachable offense. Why? Because according to the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, not the office of the US president. “Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria,” asked Jeff Sessions. Leon Panetta responded: “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from Congress…”.

Equally illegal were three other decisions made or endorsed by Barack Obama’s government. The Financial Bailout of 2008, where US taxpayers were shoved trillions of dollars in debt that the US government — through its corporate handler Federal Reserve — promised and delivered to foreign banks. Incredibly, those funds were not used to help in the economic recovery, but to further consolidate economic power in the hands of foreign banking institutions. Because of this, Americans, current and future, will have to work harder than ever to pay for the interests this debt will accrue through the years. In fact, Americans were illegally made responsible for a pile of debt originally created by the banks and banking governing institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.You will say, “but that was under Bush! Correct, and he should also be held accountable. But Obama extended such bailouts by permitting the creation of financial aid packages such as Quantitative Easing I, II and III. That is, the private Federal Reserve used US assets as leverage to create money out of thin air in order to loan it out to foreign and national banking institutions who used the money not to pay off the debt they themselves created, but to hoard it into their pockets.

Third, after siding with the United Kingdom, which publicly pushed to attack Syria, the United States spoke about a ‘special relationship’ with the British and joined their call to carry out regime change in that country, much like they did in Libya, should president Bashar al-Assad not resign. The same policies now used by David Cameron and Barack Obama were reasons to sentence Nazis to death after they were judged in the Nuremberg trials for their responsibility in the atrocities carried out during Adolf Hitler’s time in power and beyond. But for some reason, Nazi atrocities are now considered business as usual and natural ways to conduct a country into war against nations that not only do not pose a threat to the United States, but that haven’t even declared war against it.

Fourth, both Obama and Congress, under the premise of National Security and unproven imminent threats, passed and signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, a piece of legislation that gives the president the power to detain, torture and murder anyone, including Americans, anywhere, if he believes a person is a threat to the continuity of government in the United States. That is, Obama can ask intelligence agencies and other law enforcement organizations to grab anyone from the street or their houses, put a bag over their heads, push him into a van and take him away never to be seen again. Under this law, there doesn’t need to be any crime committed, any charges presented against anyone, no judge, no jury, nothing. The president and his minions will make all decisions.

In an attempt to calm down public outcry, Obama said in public that he would not sign the NDAA if it did not exclude Americans from the indefinite detention clause. But behind closed doors, Obama requested that Americans were included as part of the people who could be kidnapped and possibly murdered by his command. He also said that although he had that power, he did not intend to use it against Americans.

It is important to say that this is not about Obama himself, but about the office of the president. Not only Obama, but any other person elected president will be able to detain anyone indefinitely without a judge order or a jury trial. This law directly violates the US Constitution’s 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, as they establish that people are free from unwarranted searches and seizures. Citizens have the constitutional right to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects and no one should be held to answer for crimes unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

In case this all has not prompted you to take action, remember: It is the office of the president and Congress the ones that need and must be held accountable to us, their creators; not the other way around. There is no Constitutional way to simply forget about the existing laws because someone says it is necessary to do so. The lack of accountability must stop.

Through this article, The Real Agenda would like to publicly join Infowars.com’s campaign to call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Obama as well as any Congressman or woman that explicitly or otherwise supported and supports the US Financial Bailout of 2008, the use of Military Force without Congressional approval, the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act and its implementation against American citizens or foreigners. All of the above are unconstitutional, impeachable offenses that must be stopped now.

The cancer needs to heal for the patient to survive. Right now, it is up to you to be part of the medicine.

See Infowars.com’s campaign video narrated by Sean Stone below.