The silent massacre
Download 0.99 Mb. View original pdf
|
| of Our America: “It was never the intent of the framers [of the Constitution] to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.” Judge Taylor ruled that not only did wiretapping violate the principle of the separation of powers but it also clearly conflicted with Amendments I and IV. The judge’s ruling was aimed at the presidency but it applied to all areas of law enforcement on all levels of government. Several of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights deal with violation of individual and personal rights under the Patriot Act: I (freedom of speech), II (freedom from unlawful search), IV (full faith and credit), V (due process of law), VI (accused to be informed of the nature of his crime), VII (trial by jury under “the rules of common law”), VIII (cruel and unusual punishment), IX (other rights not spelled out are not to be abridged). Among the latter would be the freedom of privacy of thought, of which targets who receive the attackers’ mind control effects have been totally deprived. The Supreme Court and other courts have remained strangely mute in defense of our personal rights. In December, 2005, Bush addressed the nation on that issue, acknowledging that activity. Understandably, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vigorously defended the administration’s illegally spying on Americans. Since then, little has changed. In effect, the executive branch stood down the judicial branch and won. It is not that the Constitution has failed; it is that it has been ignored and undermined by power-hungry factions both inside and outside the Federal Government. Judge Taylor’s decision had no effect on the excesses of the Bush administration. Two years after Judge Taylor’s “cease and desist” order, Bush on July 17, 2007, signed an Executive Order that allows Federal authorities to seize assets of dissenting citizens who "directly or indirectly" hinder Bush’s Iraq War agenda. If Bush’s tactics against war protestors were not a sufficient threat to American rights, on October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed legislation called “The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,” which allows law enforcement to arrest individuals whom they suspect hold radical ideas BEFORE they “turn violent.” With powers that broad, it is not difficult to perceive that they also allow using high- tech surveillance and neurological weaponry on those targets to determine whether they are violent or about to turn violent. Subsequent legislation such as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which gives the executive branch the authority to spy on citizens’ email and other communication, has given Bush’s successor increasing power. Under President Obama, the takeover of Americans’ personal rights is complete. The executive branch is winner over the other two branches when it pertains to the “protection” of American rights. In civics class many years ago, I learned that the executive branch only enforced the laws passed by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. Yet, many of our personal rights have been curtailed merely by “executive orders.” Although I am not a Constitutional lawyer, it appears that executive orders can only apply to the executive branch; otherwise, they encroach upon the powers granted to the other two branches of government. Yet, the president continues to churn out “executive orders” that have comprehensive applications. All Presidents apparently believe that the American people should trust them in taking the necessary actions to protect them. We have trusted them. The result is that we have traded the protection of our bodies for the loss of our rights. It is ironic that my attackers tell me subliminally on a daily basis, “Trust us.” Yeah, sure. Download 0.99 Mb. Share with your friends:
|